[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7190-7225]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 FAIRNESS IN ASBESTOS INJURY RESOLUTION ACT OF 2004--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2290, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A motion to proceed to the bill (S. 2290) to create a fair 
     and efficient system to resolve claims of victims for bodily 
     injury caused by asbestos exposure, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, this is one of the most important bills 
in many decades because this bill will determine whether or not 8,400-
plus companies go into bankruptcy, with a loss of jobs, pensions, and 
opportunities for people all over this country--and all because of an 
out-of-whack tort system that has been manipulated by some veracious 
lawyers who should know better but who are too addicted to being able 
to milk the system for billions and billions of dollars, $20 billion 
thus far in legal fees and transaction costs.
  Opponents of this bill continue to assert that the fund is nothing 
more than a bailout of corporate America because it is not big enough. 
There is one word for that: baloney. This charge, which the personal 
injury lawyers keep repeating in television and print ads, completely 
baffles me. Let me explain why.
  Currently, estimates of what the existing tort system will pay to 
plaintiffs in the future range from $61 billion to $92 billion. That is 
currently. This is what the independent actuaries say is the amount of 
money the victims will actually receive under the current system.
  Let me just point to this chart: the asbestos victims' compensation 
in billions of dollars. Under the tort system--the current out-of-whack 
tort system--you have three colors on the chart: dark blue, kind of 
light blue, and yellow. The light blue illustrates the fees we pay to 
the defense lawyers in these cases. The dark blue happens to consist of 
the fees we pay to the trial lawyers--in other words, the plaintiffs' 
lawyer.
  Between them, as you can see on that Tillinghast account, shown at 
the top, you have $69 billion. How much goes to the victims? It is $61 
billion--if it is there, if these companies do not go bankrupt. Take 
the Milliman one, shown down below: $61 billion to the personal injury 
lawyers, $42 billion to the defense lawyers. That is $103 billion. Only 
$92 billion goes to the victims. That is assuming these 8,400 companies 
have not gone into bankruptcy. We have already had 70 companies go into 
bankruptcy.
  But look what happens under the FAIR Act. The attorneys would still 
get a whopping $2.5 billion for what really amounts to rolling-off-a-
log type of a lawsuit because it would not take all the efforts they 
would have to put in to make cases otherwise in court. They would get 
$2.5 billion. But $111.5 billion would go to the victims. It is pretty 
hard to say that is not a fair deal or that it is a bailout of 
corporate America.
  Now, our bill, in comparison to the $61 billion to $92 billion of 
those two actuary accounts that will go to the plaintiffs, gets them 
$111.5 billion, which is a lot more than either of those estimates 
were. This goes to the pockets of the injured persons.
  So where does the rest of the expected cost of the tort system go? 
Under the current system, it is going to lawyers. It is going to 
lawyers' fees and other litigation costs, with personal injury lawyers 
alone expected to garner $40 billion of these future expenses. In 
addition, 80 percent or more of claims filed in recent years are from 
individuals who do not have a medically cognizable injury and are not 
impaired in their daily routine. Let me put that in lay terms. They do 
not have any injury that can be shown by the current medical analysis 
we have in existence today, and it is the best in the history of the 
world.
  Indeed, one scholar estimated that meritless claims--claims without 
any merit at all--based on questionable ``diagnoses'' for mass 
screenings have accounted for $28.5 billion in costs already. As a 
result, the truly ill get even less than the $61 billion to $92 billion 
estimate that is suggested by these two studies.
  Measured against the existing system, with all of its inequities and 
high transaction costs, the FAIR Act will deliver far more directly to 
victims. Up to $124 billion will be available to compensate those who 
are sick from asbestos while still providing medical monitoring for 
those at risk but not yet impaired--in other words, not yet sick, and 
who may never get sick. This is a simplified, no-fault, nonadversarial 
system which will not require forking over 40 percent to 60 percent to 
any professional.
  No matter how you look at it, victims get far more compensation under 
this bill--and in a far more timely manner--than in the current system. 
This alone indicates that the fund is big enough.
  But let's look at it from another angle. Are the aggregate fund 
contributions by companies and insurers expected to be less than they 
are paying in the current system? According to the Congressional Budget 
Office, the answer is no. CBO estimates that defendants will have about 
the same expenses in the current system for the next 5 years. This is 
on page 20 of the CBO's October 2, 2003, cost estimate for this fund. 
On the same page, CBO estimates, for the bill as reported from 
committee, that insurers would actually pay more to the fund in this 
same period than they would under the current system.
  Keep in mind, the current system is gouging billions of dollars for 
nonsick claimants. Look, this fund, No. 1, calls for about as much 
money as companies are paying now; No. 2, shifts this money to the 
truly sick; and No. 3, reduces the transaction costs so more funds are 
available to compensate injured parties. In other words, we help those 
who deserve to be helped, where under the current system there are a 
lot of people sopping up the funds that are there who are not even 
sick, who have not suffered from sickness, and may never suffer from 
sickness.
  This is a bailout? Give me a break. The chief benefit contributors 
get out of this deal is one thing, and that is predictability. They 
know what their payments will be from year to year, and that is it.
  I was told if I was able to get $108 billion a number of Democrats 
would gladly sponsor and support this bill. I had indications from the 
union movement: But, boy, if you got $108 billion on the table, we will 
be there. They did not think we could get it done. But we did.
  Now, despite all of these things I have been talking about, we have 
heard the argument that the money is not enough since S. 1125 was first 
introduced in May of 2003 when industry agreed to a $94 billion fund. 
Before introducing S. 1125, I had heard from the

[[Page 7191]]

other side of the aisle that $94 billion was not sufficient but that 
$108 billion might be enough, as I have just said. I worked hard to get 
the business community to commit to this funding, and, in the end, the 
Judiciary Committee added a provision that would simply require $14 
billion in additional funds in order to reach this goal. The funds, 
however, were not guaranteed in the committee-reported bill, as are 
those under S. 2290.
  During the committee process, this $14 billion was added to the 
substantial contributions required from both defendants and insurers. 
When S. 1125 was reported out of committee, therefore, it provided for 
$104 billion in mandatory funding from defendant companies and 
insurers, plus an estimated $4 billion from bankruptcy trusts. The $108 
billion was there.
  The committee voted by a 14-3 margin that the claim values which 
added up to $108 billion--those values--were fair--14 to 3, with a 
number of Democrats voting with us. Not a single Democrat voted against 
these claim values. The only ones who did were 3 Republicans, and they 
thought it was too much.
  Now we are hearing that the total just is not high enough. If the 
values were good enough for every Democrat before, why not now? I just 
do not get it.
  By the way, let's go back just a step or two here. As shown on this 
chart, we are getting far more money to the sick and needy than the two 
expert actuarial firms say will go to the sick and needy--far more 
money. Those who make arguments to the contrary are not being fair.
  Later in the committee markup, to ensure the risk of insufficient 
funding would not fall on claimants, an amendment was offered by 
Senators Kohl and Feinstein to provide a huge amount of open-ended, 
contingent funding that could be available to pay claims, up to an 
additional $31 billion over a nearly 20-year period. The number $31 
billion was not in the amendment, nor was the number $45 billion, which 
some claim it was. The amendment simply called for maintaining the 
contributions at the same level if such funds were needed to maintain 
solvency, and this flat line happened to add up to $31 billion, since 
we had already added $14 billion to the base funding. This meant when 
the contingent funding was added to the $108 billion of mandatory 
funding, up to $139 billion could come into the fund and ultimately out 
to the people.
  Democrats and labor unions falsely continue to cite the $153 billion 
number whenever they can. I challenge any of them to show me that 
number in S. 1125, the committee-reported bill. Moreover, the $139 
billion was not hard money that would be going to claimants. That is a 
fact. It was not hard money that would be going to claimants. The fund 
under S. 2290 would reach this same and substantial level of funding.
  Further rendering this $139 billion obsolete is the fact a sunset 
provision was added later in the markup. This provided an ultimate 
safeguard, in the eyes of those who filed it, for fund solvency. Still 
further, we added in S. 2290 a measure which renders the contingent 
funding amendment from the markup totally unnecessary--the ability for 
the fund to borrow against 7 years of future revenue. With this 
provision, the Feinstein-Kohl contingent funding measure is no longer 
needed. Thus the whole premise for arguing more money is needed because 
the committee bill had more money is literally destroyed. The 
Feinstein-Kohl amendment created what amounts to a rhetorical problem 
on the total value of claims for some Democrats and some labor unions. 
But it is only that, a rhetorical problem.
  Claims values adding to $108 billion were good enough for almost all 
the Democrats at the markup, and there is no reason the current $114 
billion now should be inadequate.
  Finally, I will give another indication of why those who now argue 
$114 billion is not enough are being unfair, if not somewhat 
disingenuous. Back on April 24, 2003, the AFL-CIO asked an investment 
banking firm to run a financial model with certain claims values. How 
much did this model, which they shared with Republicans during 
negotiations, add up to? Believe it or not, under the base case, it 
added to $121 billion. You heard that correctly, $121 billion. We offer 
a fund with a base of $114 billion in guaranteed money with a $10 
billion contingency, 7 times the borrowing authority, and a sunset back 
to the tort system, and there is no deal yet?
  I said earlier, I don't get it. But I suspect the reason we are 
seeing retrenchment and revisionism is that--and there is simply no 
delicate way to say this so I will be blunt--when personal injury 
lawyers put the screws on Democrats and labor unions, they are trying 
to stop this good bill at all costs. It is pretty apparent if you look 
at the flagrantly misleading ads they put on television, all paid for 
by the victims, by the way, through these exorbitant fees and 
transaction costs.
  I will tell you one thing, they don't want to kill the golden goose 
that asbestos litigation is for them. They are only too happy to 
collect the golden eggs, even though the people who are truly sick, 
truly injured, will not get the money in many cases. In the end 
imposing financial obligations on the business community that are much 
more than they would have to pay under the broken litigation system to 
compensate victims would only risk bankrupting even more businesses and 
losing more jobs and pensions. Already, as I have mentioned, more than 
70 companies have gone bankrupt due to asbestos litigation, and as many 
as 60,000 American jobs have been lost. It is estimated if this keeps 
going and we don't do what we should do here on this floor, there could 
be as many as a half million jobs lost. I believe that is a low, 
conservative figure.
  If most of these companies go into bankruptcy, I can't begin to tell 
you what a detriment it will be to our country, let alone the sick and 
needy who really deserve the moneys.
  Rather than rely on their own numbers or provide a reasonable 
alternative, opponents of the bill falsely contend S. 1125 had provided 
$153 billion and, therefore, S. 2290 does not provide enough funding. 
Of course, litigating these cases in Federal court may be a big risk to 
some personal injury lawyers who have successfully manipulated some 
outlier State courts to create a system of jackpot justice.
  In reality, the Feinstein-Kohl amendment in committee, which 
introduced the open-ended contingency funding, was designed to ensure 
the fund established under the act did not become another Manville 
trust, placing the risk of insufficient funding on future victims and 
leaving them with only pennies on the dollar. That is a risk which 
victims will not face under S. 2290.
  If, despite paying significantly more money than the current tort 
system, the fund is unable at any point to pay full value; that is, 100 
percent on eligible claims, then the fund will sunset and the tort 
system will reopen in Federal courts to compensate for future victims. 
There will be no risk to the victims.
  We can't forget this bill is about the victims, not overinflated 
estimates of a broken tort system that diverts much-needed resources to 
unimpaired claimants and reduces awards significantly to pay attorney's 
fees and other transaction costs that do not directly benefit 
claimants. By any objective standard, this fund is more than adequately 
funded.
  Although we are being met with obstacles in getting to the substance 
of the legislation, I am heartened by something. There has been 
significant bipartisan support for passage of a legislative solution to 
the asbestos litigation crisis throughout the session. In fact, calls 
for Senate action have been occurring for several years.
  For example, when the esteemed ranking member was chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, my good friend Senator Leahy stated:

     . . . Congress can provide a secure, fair and efficient means 
     of compensating victims. I believe it is in the national 
     interest to encourage fair and expeditious settlement between 
     companies and asbestos victims.

  Those were Senator Leahy's remarks in the September 25, 2002, U.S. 
Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on asbestos litigation.

[[Page 7192]]

  Senator Leahy echoed his sentiments last year during a hearing I 
chaired, when he said:

       These bankruptcies create a lose-lose situation. Asbestos 
     victims deserving fair compensation do not receive it and 
     bankrupt companies cannot create new jobs nor invest in our 
     economy . . . If we work in good faith toward a bipartisan 
     asbestos solution, we can meet the challenge created by 
     [asbestos] litigation. I agree with the Supreme Court's 
     conclusion that the number of claims defies ``customary 
     judicial administration and calls for national legislation.''

  That was Senator Leahy's statement on March 5, 2003 in the committee 
hearing which was entitled, ``It is time for Congress to act.''
  Other Members have made clear they share his opinions. For example, 
last May, nearly a year ago, Senator Dodd made the following 
observation:

       [W]e are working very hard to come up with a compromise 
     proposal on the asbestos issue. And we've taken major steps 
     in that direction, working with organized labor, with the 
     insurance industry, with the insured, and many others who 
     have a stakeholding in the outcome of this particular avenue. 
     It's a critically important effort.

  That statement was made on May 3, 2003. The distinguished Senator 
from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, reinforced those statements later when 
he noted on March 4, 2004, when referring to the asbestos problem:

       This is a matter that does cry out for a solution.

  As work progressed on bipartisan legislation establishing a privately 
funded national trust fund, support for the concept grew. In a July 
2003 letter to Senators Frist and Daschle, Senators Dorgan, Breaux, 
Nelson, Baucus, Kohl, Miller, Lincoln, Levin, Stabenow, and Carper 
stated:

       The asbestos litigation crisis is real and urgently 
     requires a legislative solution. . . . An administrative 
     trust fund is the right approach and represents a good 
     foundation for a solid legislative solution. . . . A 
     legislative solution to the asbestos crisis is a crucial 
     goal. . . . We believe that the groundwork has been laid by 
     the Committee leadership to provide a real solution to this 
     ongoing problem.

  That was a July 11, 2003, letter to Senators Frist and Daschle.
  In fact, when the legislation was originally introduced, Senator 
Nelson stated:

       This will protect victims, save jobs, and force companies 
     to pay their fair share. This is a good start to solving a 
     big problem.

  That was a press release on May 23, 2003. I have appreciated Senator 
Nelson's support over the last year. I don't know whether they can pull 
him back on this cloture vote on Thursday. But if they do, it would 
show this is becoming a political exercise to the detriment of these 
workers, to the detriment of these unions, to the detriment of the 
insurance companies, and to the detriment of these companies.
  As last year progressed and fears grew that the legislative effort 
might fall victim to election year politics, calls for action 
intensified. For example, Senator Dorgan wrote the following in another 
letter to Senators Frist and Daschle:

       We must complete asbestos reform before this session. I 
     think it would be a serious mistake--for victims, for the 
     economy, and for the Senate--if we adjourned without enacting 
     asbestos legislation. Certainly, a compromise must meet the 
     needs of all the stakeholders. . . . We must seize this 
     opportunity to solve a major public policy challenge for our 
     Nation.

  That was written on October 29, 2003, in a letter to Senators Frist 
and Daschle. Yet, as you know, we were unable to get this up and get it 
passed last year. I agree with the Senator; it needed to be passed last 
year. To allow us to go past this year would be almost criminal.
  His opinions were echoed by Senator Baucus, who wrote:

       After all the hard work that has been put into this bill 
     over the past several years, particularly this year, it would 
     be a shame to let it go to waste. It would also have serious 
     implications for the economy and for victims if we let this 
     historic opportunity pass us by. . . . From what I 
     understand, we are very close. . . . I urge you both to do 
     everything in your power to bring both sides together for a 
     swift resolution of this longstanding debate.

  That was before we have gone way beyond last year's bill, and we have 
given well over 50 amendments to Democrats to achieve this bill.
  That was a November 5, 2003 letter.
  On the same day, Senator Levin also sent a letter to Senators Frist 
and Daschle expressing his own concerns about the importance of the 
Senate taking action:

       I would like to again stress the importance of addressing 
     the issue of asbestos reform before we adjourn this session 
     of Congress. . . . [T]he Senate is in jeopardy of missing a 
     historic opportunity to pass asbestos legislation with strong 
     bipartisan support. It is obvious to anyone . . . that the 
     system is broken and needs to be repaired.

  That letter was dated November 5, 2003.
  These were all written during the last year's session of Congress.
  A week later, Senator Stabenow gave the following advice to Senators 
Frist and Daschle in a letter:

       I believe that we have an historic opportunity right now to 
     pass asbestos reform legislation with strong bipartisan 
     support. . . . The current system has a devastating impact on 
     victims and their families, who have to continue to wait 
     while the judicial system wades through their claims, and on 
     companies, many who have had to file for bankruptcy because 
     of asbestos lawsuits. I urge you both to continue to work on 
     a bipartisan solution to this national problem.

  That was in a November 13, 2003, letter.
  Senator Leahy made the following statement on the floor a few days 
later:

       . . . [W]e have come to a complete accord on the idea that 
     the fairest, most efficient way to provide compensation for 
     asbestos victims is through the creation of a national fund 
     that will apply agreed-upon medical criteria in evaluating 
     patients' injuries . . . an effective and efficient means to 
     end the asbestos litigation crisis within reach, and we must 
     grasp it.

  That was a floor statement made on November 22 of last year. 
Unfortunately, time ran out before consensus could be reached.
  At the urging of members on both sides of the aisle, Senator Frist 
announced in December his intention to accommodate Democratic requests 
for more time, and he announced he would delay floor consideration 
until this spring. This year, as negotiations continued in various 
settings, a call for action has continued. For example, on March 4, 
Senator Dodd noted the crisis in asbestos litigation is ``a matter that 
does cry out for a solution.'' That was on March 4 in the Congressional 
Record.
  A few days later, Senator Reid acknowledged ``we have to do something 
about asbestos litigation.'' That was in the March 9 Congressional 
Record.
  It would be impossible to argue there is an absence of bipartisan 
interest in fixing the asbestos litigation crisis. Nothing has changed 
since the Democratic leadership council made the following observation 
in 2002:

       This is one issue where the fight is not simply a part of 
     the age-old struggle between companies seeking to avoid 
     financial responsibilities for misdeeds and trial attorneys 
     seeking to punish them while rewarding their clients and 
     themselves. We agree with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader 
     Ginsburg, who argued in an earlier case that the goal should 
     be to provide secure, fair, and efficient means of 
     compensating victims of asbestos exposure. We concur with the 
     view of the AFL-CIO that the current system is unfair and 
     unpredictable. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat 
     Leahy's decision to hold a fair and balanced hearing on the 
     asbestos litigation crisis should signal the beginning of a 
     bipartisan effort to create certainty in the system and get 
     help to victims without spurring new waves of bankruptcies.

  That was in the New Democratic Daily on September 18, 2002, a year 
and a half ago.
  These are some of the Democratic calls for reforms on this chart. I 
have on this particular chart quotes by Senators Dorgan, Breaux, 
Nelson, Baucus, Kohl, Miller, Lincoln, Levin, Stabenow, and Carper. In 
a letter, they said:

       The asbestos litigation crisis is real and urgently 
     requires a legislative solution.

  On March 4, Senator Dodd said:

       This is a matter that does cry out for a solution.

  Senator Dorgan wrote on October 29 a letter to the leaders:

       We must complete asbestos reform before this session.

  Senator Stabenow wrote on November 13:

       I believe that we have an historic opportunity right now to 
     pass asbestos reform legislation with strong bipartisan 
     support.


[[Page 7193]]


  Senator Leahy, on November 22, 2003, said:

       An effective and efficient means to end the asbestos 
     litigation crisis is within reach, and we must grasp it.

  Some of the statements I have quoted from my Democratic colleagues 
are listed on that chart. When viewing just a segment of these quotes, 
I think it is clear the need for reform is universally understood. The 
issues that must be addressed are clear. The time has come to act. We 
have worked our guts out to try to accommodate our friends on the other 
side. All we hear is: more money, more money, more money. It is as 
though these 8,400 companies have an unlimited supply of money to be 
given. In many cases, those companies are dramatically mistreated by 
this whole system. In many cases, they should never have had to pay a 
dime. I will cite one of the larger insurance companies in this 
country. They never, ever insured for asbestos or asbestosis, or any 
problem or malady that comes from asbestos; they never had anything to 
do with asbestos, other than they had their medical team do a medical 
analysis and concluded mesothelioma probably comes from exposure to 
asbestos. That was a service to society, not anything that should cause 
liability. Because of that, this company has been joined in over 60,000 
cases, every one of which they can win and should win. The last one 
they tried, they did win, but it cost them $2 million for attorneys' 
fees alone.
  That is money that could have gone to the victims, and just to get 
some finality to this situation, just to solve this problem, that 
company is willing to pay out what amounts to millions of dollars that 
they do not owe just to get this over with. There is a raft of 
companies that are in the lawsuits that fit that category.
  Where is the justice on the other side? I admit, you want to fight 
for your constituencies--the personal injury lawyers and the unions--
but you also have constituencies, my friends on the other side, in 
these businesses that are going to go bankrupt and insurance companies 
that also are going to go bankrupt and the economy that is going to be 
tremendously hurt by this situation if we do not resolve this problem. 
We have a whopping amount of money to resolve these problems.
  The issues that must be addressed are clear. The time has come to 
act. The asbestos litigation crisis is a national nightmare, and the 
failure of Congress to fix it would be a legislative disgrace.
  I would like to show some charts with other calls for reform from 
labor unions and the media. Let me go into some of those.
  Organized labor calls for reform. This is a statement of Jonathan 
Hiatt, general counsel with the AFL-CIO. This was made before the 
Judiciary Committee on January 25, 2002:

       Uncertainty for workers and their families is growing as 
     they lose health insurance and see their companies file for 
     bankruptcy protection.

  Mr. Hiatt is a very bright and noble attorney in many respects, and I 
have a lot of respect for him. What has the AFL-CIO done? We reached 
$108 billion which I had indications they would accept, but now we are 
as high as $124 billion. Where are they?
  Take AFL-CIO Principles on Asbestos Compensation which was stated on 
August 7, 2002:

       [U]nder current law and legal processes, many asbestos 
     victims are not being treated fairly.

  In other words, the system is broken. Here we have a chance of 
changing the system. This is the art of the doable. And where are the 
trade unions? They are the ones that are losing the jobs. They are the 
ones that are primarily losing health care benefits. They are the ones 
that are losing their pensions from these companies that are going 
bankrupt. Where are they? Why aren't they demanding that our friends on 
the other side do something about this, other than scream for more 
money all the time. Stones can only give so much blood, and, of course, 
there is a certain irony in that statement.
  Let's take the United Steelworkers of America, local 12773:

       We really believe this needs to be resolved now.

  Or take the Paper, Allied-Industrial Chemical, Energy Workers 
International Union, local 2-0891:

       . . . we might not have another chance for some time.

  They might not have jobs in the future because of this dragging of 
the feet we are getting from the other side on this matter.
  Or take the United Steelworkers of America, local 7110:

       It is too important to let pass by.

  These sum it up. Let's take media calls for reform just so people 
understand.
  The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, September 25, 2003:

       There is an elephant to be moved, and this is the best 
     chance in years. The time for Congress to act is now.

  The Detroit News, April 4, 2004:

       The bill makes economic sense for companies and would 
     ensure significant payments to employees who develop serious 
     illness. It's a humane solution and ought to be adopted.

  That is the Detroit News, a heavily industrialized city. They 
understand this. Why the slowdown?
  Take the Chicago Times, on June 16, 2004:

       It is ludicrous to keep litigating for the benefit of the 
     litigators, when what is needed is a claims system for the 
     benefit of the victims.

  That is what this bill does. It is a claims system for the benefit of 
the victims.
  There is a whopping amount of money that will go to the victims, not 
to attorneys, although the attorneys still will get $2.5 billion of it, 
which is a lot of money.
  Take the Washington Times on September 24, 2003:

     . . . current legislation to control asbestos-related 
     lawsuits is one of the best ways Congress can protect jobs.

  The current legislation.
  Or take the Capital Times & Wisconsin State Journal on May 13, 2003:

       An asbestos trust fund is a good idea. It should become 
     law.
       Fund Could End Asbestos Legal Battles.

  That is what this bill can do. Why don't we have more help from the 
other side?
  None of these papers, with the possible exception of Washington 
Times, one would call moderate to conservative. Most are more liberal 
papers.
  The Chicago Times, June 16, 2003:

       The proposal . . . would get compensation to genuine 
     victims and get hundreds of thousands of cases out of the 
     regular court system.

  That is one of the points I have not emphasized up to now. As a 
former trial lawyer, I have to tell you, our courts are clogged with 
all kinds of frivolous suits, all kinds of frivolous cases. I am not 
talking about these cases necessarily, but all kinds of them. Then you 
add these hundreds of thousands of cases, and one can see why justice 
is not being obtained, especially for those who are sick and needy.
  I notice that my colleague from Washington is in the Chamber. I thank 
her and her staff for their good-faith efforts in working with us to 
reach consensus on an appropriate asbestos ban. I am pleased that we, 
including Senators Feinstein and Kohl, were able to reach bipartisan 
consensus on this very important issue. It is important.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following 
the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Washington, the 
distinguished Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, be recognized to give 
his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that during 
today's session of the Senate Senator Harkin be recognized for up to 15 
minutes as in morning business; Senator Byrd for up to 40 minutes as in 
morning business; and Senator Inhofe for up to 30 minutes as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise today to share my serious 
concerns with the asbestos liability bill now before the Senate. As my 
colleagues know, this is not just another bill for

[[Page 7194]]

me. This is something I spent years learning about, educating my 
colleagues about, and writing legislation to address.
  In fact, my work on asbestos started 3 years ago this very month when 
I asked the Senate HELP Committee to hold a hearing on asbestos 
exposure in the workplace.
  I started this as a very lonely battle with my good friend, Senator 
Paul Wellstone. We held press conferences, and it seemed like no one 
came. Senator Baucus and Senator Cantwell were with us, but it was a 
very lonely fight.
  That is why today it is so great to watch my colleagues, such as 
Senator Daschle, Senator Reid, Senator Dayton, and Senator Leahy moving 
this discussion to such a productive level. They have taken the time to 
listen to the victims, and I think if everyone did, we would have a 
much more balanced bill in front of us today.
  I am pleased that after working all these years with the victims, 
family members, and doctors, the full Senate is now engaged in a debate 
about asbestos. I am also pleased that many of the issues I have been 
fighting for have been included in this legislation. This bill does 
include a modified ban on asbestos, similar to the original ban that I 
first introduced 2 years ago. That is an important acknowledgment of 
what I told the Judiciary Committee did last June:

       If Congress is going to prevent any future lawsuits, then 
     Congress must try to prevent any more asbestos casualties, by 
     banning the use of asbestos.
  So I am pleased by some of the progress in this bill, but I am also 
deeply disturbed by what this bill will do to people whose lives have 
been torn apart by asbestos, to future victims, to family members, and 
to average Americans who are being exposed to deadly asbestos every day 
without even knowing it. After listening to the victims, hearing their 
stories, looking them in the eye, there is no way I could vote for this 
inadequate and unbalanced bill today.
  As I have learned about asbestos over the past 3 years, I have been 
troubled by the duplicity of some of the companies, by the negligence 
of our own Government, and by the absolute horror that asbestos 
inflicts on people. Throughout this process, I have also been touched 
by the commitment and the optimism of victims. Some of them realize it 
is too late for them, but they want to make sure no other American goes 
through the horror they have experienced.
  After working with them, I know I am not just standing on the Senate 
floor as a single Senator. I am standing here on behalf of all of the 
people I have been honored to meet and stand with over the past 3 
years.
  I am standing here on behalf of people like Brian Harvey, Gayla 
Benefield, Bret Williams, Ralph Busch, Marv Sather, and George 
Biekkola.
  They were all exposed to asbestos through no fault of their own.
  I am standing here on behalf of the family members of asbestos 
victims, people like Sue Vento, the wife of the late Congressman Bruce 
Vento of Minnesota; Sue Harvey, and LTC James Zumwalt, the son of Navy 
hero Elmo Zumwalt.
  I am standing here on behalf of doctors who have labored to save 
their patients against a merciless killer, doctors like Michael Harbut, 
Alan Whitehouse, and Harvey Pass who not only provided medical care but 
worked to raise awareness and call for needed research.
  I am standing here on behalf of public health leaders like Dr. 
Richard Lemen, a former Assistant Surgeon General of the United States; 
Dr. Phil Landrigan, and people like Andrew Schneider and Barry 
Castleman who have worked to warn the public about these dangers.
  I am standing here on behalf of researchers and advocates, people 
like Chris Hahn of the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation and 
advocates at the Environmental Working Group.
  All of these people have stood with me at press conferences and have 
testified before Senate hearings, calling for us to help the victims 
and to ban asbestos. We have a real obligation to them.
  I am standing on the Senate floor today to make sure the Senate does 
right by people who have been wronged.
  Let me share one of their voices with my colleagues. In July 2001, 
the HELP Committee held that hearing that I requested on workplace 
safety and asbestos exposure. One of the witnesses was Mr. George 
Biekkola of Michigan, a World War II veteran and a community leader who 
helped bring a hockey rink to the children of his community.
  Those of us who were at that hearing 3 years ago will never forget 
what he said. He broke down several times as he read his statement, but 
his message was clear. He told us he had spent 30 years working at the 
Cleveland Cliff Iron Company in Michigan. He operated a hard rock drill 
and was exposed to asbestos dust. He was forced to retire at the age of 
60 because asbestos had scarred his lungs and reduced his lung capacity 
by one-third. At that hearing, he told us:

       I thought I'd be spending my retirement traveling out West 
     with my wife, hunting deer up in the mountains. But today I 
     can't.

  He said he could not exert himself because his heart was weak and 
that he had to be careful because a simple case of pneumonia could kill 
him. He told us:

       This isn't how I thought I'd be spending my retirement, but 
     when I think about the other guys I worked with--I guess I 
     came out lucky.

  He said:

       I'm here today to tell you my story so that maybe someone 
     else working in a mine or a brake shop or a factory won't 
     lose the things I have lost.

  He concluded his statement with these words:

       Senators, please make sure that what happened to me won't 
     happen to anyone else. . . . Workers like me are counting on 
     you to protect us. Please don't let us down.

  I am sad to report that George Biekkola died 2 weeks ago today from 
asbestosis and mesothelioma. Until the end, he was looking out for 
other victims. In fact, at his funeral last Saturday his family 
displayed a photograph of him testifying at that Senate hearing.
  George is not with us today, but his words ring as loudly now as they 
did 3 years ago: Senators, do not let us down.
  That is why I have been working on asbestos for the last 3 years and 
that is why I cannot support this inadequate bill. After all the things 
that Americans like George Biekkola have been through, after all they 
have lost, after all their families have lost, after all they have done 
to protect others, I will not let them down, and that is why I cannot 
support this bill.
  Before I turn to the specifics, I want to put this discussion in 
context. For decades we have been pumping this poison into Americans, 
on purpose and by accident. It has wrecked lives, families, and 
fortunes, and it has been a problem for many businesses. Asbestos is 
everywhere, and it is killing us. We have to stop putting this killer 
in products. We have to stop importing products that contain asbestos. 
We have to figure out a way to make whole everyone who has been 
affected by this epidemic, and we need to do it in a balanced way that 
gives certainty and equity to both victims and to companies.
  This process has been an education for me because like many Americans 
I thought asbestos had been banned a very long time ago. In 1989, the 
EPA did try to ban asbestos, but that effort was overturned in a 
lawsuit from the asbestos industry. Ten years later, in 1999, reporter 
Andrew Schneider and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer published articles 
about a disturbing trend in a small mining town of Libby, MT. Residents 
there are suffering from extraordinarily high rates of asbestos-related 
disease. At many plants where vermiculite from Libby was processed and 
then shipped, waste rock left over from the expansion process was given 
away for free. I learned that people used this free waste rock in their 
yards, in their driveways, and in their gardens.
  This picture that I have with me today is Justin and Tim Jorgensen. 
They are climbing on waste rock that was given out by Western Minerals, 
Inc., in St. Paul, MN, some time in the

[[Page 7195]]

1970s. According to W.R. Grace records, this rock they are playing on 
contained between 2 and 10 percent temuline asbestos. This rock 
produced airborne asbestos concentrations 135 times higher than OSHA's 
current standards for workers.
  We need to do right by Justin and Tim, and those are the people I 
think about when I look at this bill.
  I learned, in fact, that our country is far behind others. The United 
States remains the only industrialized country besides Canada that has 
not yet banned asbestos. More than 30 million pounds of asbestos are 
still today right now consumed in the United States each year. I 
learned that asbestos is still found today in over 3,000 common 
products in the United States, including baby powder, cosmetics, brake 
pads, pipes, hairdryers, ceiling tiles and vinyl flooring.
  It is still legal in 2004 to construct buildings with asbestos cement 
shingles and to treat them with asbestos roof coatings. It is still 
legal today to construct new water systems using asbestos cement pipes 
imported from other countries. It is still legal today for cars and 
trucks to be made and serviced with asbestos brake pads and linings. 
Workers in this country are still being exposed to dangerous levels of 
asbestos. According to OSHA, an estimated 1.3 million employees in 
construction and general industry face significant asbestos exposure on 
the job today. Asbestos, in fact, has taken a particularly large toll 
on the people of my State.
  According to a recent report by the Environmental Working Group, King 
County has the fourth highest number of deaths related to asbestos in 
the country. Three other counties, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish, all 
rank in the top 100 for asbestos-related deaths. Overall, Washington 
State ranks eighth in asbestos-related deaths nationwide. Just last 
week in Spokane, WA, our State department of health announced that 100 
former workers at a vermiculite factory likely inhaled deadly asbestos 
fibers and should seek advice from their doctors. They also warned that 
children and spouses who lived with those workers could become ill from 
particles that were carried home with the loved ones on their clothing, 
on their hair, and their skin.
  Given the known dangers of this mineral, we should all be asking why 
are we still using it? Why are we still adding it to products on 
purpose where there are perfectly acceptable substitutes? Americans in 
every walk of life and in every corner of this country have been 
exposed, and we have to protect them. That is why I have worked to do a 
series of things over the past few years.
  On June 18 of 2002 I introduced the Ban Asbestos in America Act. I 
reintroduced that bill again last May as S. 1115.
  I do thank all the Senators who have cosponsored my bill: Senators 
Baucus, Boxer, Cantwell, Daschle, Dayton, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, 
Hollings, Jeffords, Lautenberg, Leahy, and Reid.
  I have pushed the EPA to warn homeowners about the dangers of 
Zonolite insulation, which today is in the attics of as many as 35 
million homes, schools, and businesses.
  I have urged the EPA to warn brake mechanics about the deadly 
asbestos dust they are exposed to on the job today.
  I have asked OSHA to increase its efforts to enforce existing 
regulations that attempt to protect automobile brake mechanics.
  I have shared my concern with legislators in Canada, the country that 
is the largest source of America's asbestos imports.
  I testified at a hearing on Libby, MT, and I testified before the 
Judiciary Committee last July.
  Asbestos liability is a real problem. It is a problem for victims, 
and it is a problem for companies. We need a balanced solution.
  Unfortunately, the bill that is before us today falls short in six 
ways. First of all, it is unfair to victims because the awards are too 
small, even smaller than many would get if they were allowed a day in 
court.
  Second, it could lock future victims out of getting help because the 
trust fund is inadequate.
  Third, it keeps Americans in the dark about the dangers of asbestos. 
It does not include the education campaign that we know is needed and 
that I have been pushing for over the past 3 years.
  Fourth, it falls short on research, tracking, and treatment for 
asbestos diseases.
  Fifth, it makes family members jump through too many restrictive 
hurdles.
  And sixth, it allows insurance companies to place liens on the awards 
family members receive, unfairly reducing the award they deserve, and 
treating them much differently than other Federal compensation 
programs.
  Let me take a few minutes to discuss each of those in detail. First 
of all, as I said, the awards are too small. Many people who had their 
lives torn apart by asbestos will actually do worse under this bill 
than they would in court. For example, awards for lung cancer victims 
who have more than 15 years of exposure to asbestos are limited to 
$25,000 to $75,000, even though most of those victims will die within a 
year.
  Victims with asbestosis who have lost 20 percent to 40 percent of 
their breathing capacity, many of whom will be disabled for life, will 
receive only $85,000. That is far less than their lost wages and 
medical costs. This bill gives them less than they deserve. At the same 
time, it blocks the courthouse door to victims who have staggering 
medical bills, lost wages, and other damages. I do not see how Congress 
can leave asbestos victims worse off than they are today, but that is 
what this bill will do.
  Second, the trust fund is too small to compensate all the victims, 
but that is just one of the problems with this trust fund. I believe a 
successful trust fund will provide fair and adequate compensation to 
all victims and would bring reasonable financial certainty to defendant 
companies and insurers. To do that, the trust fund must include four 
things: Fair award values, appropriate medical criteria, adequate 
funding, and fast processing.
  The system for processing claims must allow victims to get prompt 
payments, without the complications, time, and expense of a traditional 
lawsuit. Unfortunately, the trust fund in this bill falls far short of 
what is needed. I have already discussed how the award values are 
unfair.
  In addition, the trust fund is not adequately funded. In fact, the 
trust fund in this bill has been slashed dramatically from the original 
Hatch legislation. In the Judiciary Committee's bill the trust fund was 
$153 billion. But in this bill we are being asked to vote on the trust 
fund has been slashed by over $40 billion.
  Now, the trust fund didn't shrink on its own. It was reduced after 
closed-door negotiations that included only one side, the defendant 
companies and the insurance industry. It was not based on the actual 
needs of victims. Instead, it was based on what the insurers and 
businesses were willing to pay. This one-sided agreement reduced the 
funding provided in S. 1125 by more than $40 billion.
  Making matters worse, an additional $10 billion in contingent funds 
does not become available for 24 years. The Senate should not adopt a 
policy of adjusting award values just to meet an arbitrary and 
artificial limit reached in a back room with only one side present.
  Not only was this figure arrived at in an unfair way, but it is clear 
it is not enough to meet the needs of current and future asbestos 
victims.
  The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the cost of this bill 
at $134 billion. This bill provides only $109 billion. So there is a 
significant shortfall already. But there is very good reason to believe 
this shortfall will be even larger. Recent claims in the Manville trust 
show much higher than expected claims for many asbestos diseases. Those 
claims also show that recent mortality and morbidity data increase the 
likelihood that the number of asbestos-related diseases and related 
claims will exceed current estimates.
  If this fund becomes insolvent it will leave victims without the help 
they deserve and without the help they need.

[[Page 7196]]

Because of that possibility, last year Senators inserted a number of 
protections during the Judiciary Committee markup. Tragically, very 
tragically, the bill before us today throws away all of those carefully 
crafted bipartisan protections.
  For example, we had protections for victims in case the trust fund 
became insolvent. Those protections in the Biden amendment were 
stripped from this bill.
  We had protections that guaranteed that asbestos victims would 
preserve their legal rights until the trust fund is operational. That 
is important because if this bill becomes law, it will end up in court 
and there will be no mechanism for victims and their families to get 
help while this law is tied up in court. We solved that problem with 
the Feinstein amendment, but again those protections were stripped from 
this bill.
  So overall this trust fund is inadequate. If we are going to lock the 
courthouse doors to victims, we have to be 100 percent certain the 
trust fund will have enough money to cover all of the 600,000 current 
claims and the thousands more that may be found later. This is 
especially important because asbestos diseases have a very long latency 
period, often decades long, making it hard for us to predict today who 
will need help in the future. If we pass this inadequate trust fund, my 
constituents and hundreds of thousands of Americans will be left out in 
the cold with only the fading memories of their loved ones to carry 
them through this tragic ordeal.
  My third concern with this bill is it keeps Americans in the dark 
about the dangers of asbestos exposure. This bill completely drops the 
education campaign that was in both of my asbestos bills. One of the 
reasons why asbestos takes such a deadly toll is because people are 
unaware that they're being exposed to it.
  Ralph Busch, a constituent of mine, exposed himself and his wife to 
asbestos when he renovated his home. He never knew about the dangers 
until he happened to read a story in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. 
Today, his dream house is abandoned, his credit is ruined, and his 
health is a constant worry. Ralph Busch didn't do anything wrong. He 
couldn't have known about the danger of Zonolite insulation. There is 
no way that Ralph Busch could have known that by buying and renovating 
an old house he would eventually expose his family to dangerous levels 
of asbestos.
  We must make sure others do know about this public health risk by 
providing additional resources to educate the American public about the 
dangers of worksite and home exposures to products that contain 
asbestos.
  We must also provide safety information to homeowners on what they 
can do to prevent asbestos exposures at home, particularly in the attic 
and basement.
  In addition to homeowners, many workers are exposed to asbestos on 
the job. Often they are not aware of the danger, and they don't have 
the protective equipment they need.
  I am heartened to hear that EPA, ATSDR and NIOSH are now proactively 
reaching out to consumers and workers to warn them to stay away from 
vermiculite attic insulation. But, I am very concerned that the EPA, 
prodded by a request from the law firm of the former acting agency 
administrator, is considering revising its ``Guidance for Preventing 
Asbestos Disease Among Auto Mechanics'' to convey the false impression 
that brake repair work is no longer a risk.
  Clearly, any effort by the EPA to downplay these risks flies in the 
face of current congressional intent regarding the inherent health 
problems with exposure to asbestos in the workplace. I sincerely hope 
that EPA will not bow to the pressure of the industry and in fact 
strengthen its guidance for brake mechanics.
  My fourth concern is that this bill does not do enough for research, 
tracking and treatment.
  I want to thank Senator Hatch for including some modest resources in 
his latest version of the bill--which should be used to establish 
mesothelioma research and treatment centers around the country. 
Yesterday I was pleased to hear Senator Hatch say that he would be 
willing to explore additional funding for asbestos research and 
treatment centers. These centers will be critical as the medical 
community works to develop new treatments and protocols for the variety 
of deadly cancers and diseases that exposure to asbestos brings to 
workers and their families.
  Unfortunately, not included in S. 2290 are the resources needed to 
track the victims of mesothelioma and other asbestos causing cancers, 
and to conduct additional research about the harmful effects of this 
deadly material.
  These are areas that doctors and other experts have told me time and 
again we must invest in. I heard from some of those doctors last month 
at a press conference I held, which Senator Reid and Senator Dayton 
attended. At the press conference, Dr. Bret Williams of North Carolina 
said, ``As a doctor, a cancer patient, a husband and father, I am 
asking my government to take a stand. Fix the problem. Give us hope. 
Fund a mesothelioma research program. Please invest in a cure.''
  A surgeon from Detroit, Dr. Harvey Pass, told us that progress on 
asbestos diseases requires funding, and he said that funding, ``remains 
absolutely insufficient to set up the type of collaborative approaches 
that already exist with lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, 
and colon cancer.''
  The fourth problem with this bill is its inadequate support for 
research, tracking and treatment of asbestos diseases.
  My fifth concern with this bill is the way it treats family members. 
Under this bill, family members of victims will be forced to jump 
through an additional series of hoops, reducing the likelihood they 
will ever receive an award.
  Let us remember that these family members have lost loved ones. In 
many cases they are vulnerable themselves because they came into 
contact with asbestos fibers through a family member. Take the case of 
Susan Lawes. Her father was a pipe fitter and was exposed to asbestos 
on the job. When he came home from work, asbestos fibers were still on 
his clothes. He would walk through the door after the end of a long day 
and give his daughter a hug. Last month, Susan was diagnosed with an 
asbestos disease. As she told me,'' I am literally dying because I 
hugged my dad.''
  Susan and many people like her are not treated fairly under this 
bill. The children and the spouses of workers should not have to prove 
five years of exposure to asbestos from their husbands and fathers as 
they would under this bill. They also should not be forced to appear 
before a special Physicians Review Board in order to determine their 
medical condition and whether they are eligible for a compensatory 
award.
  It is the same for people in Spokane, WA. Spokane is one of the 22 
sites that EPA has determined is still contaminated. Why are we forcing 
these innocent victims of take-home asbestos exposure to jump through 
extraordinary hoops to determine their eligibility of an award?
  My fifth concern is the unfair way this bill treats family members--
making them jump through hurdles that reduce the chance they will ever 
get the help they need.
  Finally, this bill allows insurance companies to reduce any awards 
that victims actually receive--something that is not found in similar 
federal plans.
  This bill allows insurance companies to place liens on the awards 
that victims and family members receive.
  I find it unconscionable that health insurance companies and other 
entities can recoup their costs by placing liens on the awards family 
members receive in compensation for their loss of a father, a husband, 
a son or a daughter.
  These workers were often the only breadwinners in their households, 
but this bill tells their surviving family members that they can be 
sued by their health insurance provider for a substantial part of an 
award--an award that as I've shown may already be inadequate.
  What is especially disturbing is other federal compensation programs 
do not

[[Page 7197]]

allow this type of action, but for some reason, asbestos victims are 
being given fewer protections. For example, the awards provided to 
victims in federal compensation programs like the Radiation Exposure 
Compensation Act, the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
Compensation Program Act and the Ricky Ray Hemophiliac Relief Fund Act 
are not subject to liens by workers compensation insurers. I don't know 
why the authors want to treat asbestos victims differently, but I do 
know that it is not fair, and it's one of the reasons why I can't 
support this bill.
  In the end, this bill falls far short of what victims deserve. The 
awards are too small. The trust fund is inadequate. It fails to educate 
Americans about the dangers of asbestos. It falls short on research, 
tracking and treatment for asbestos diseases. It puts unfair burdens on 
family members, and it allows insurance companies to reduce a victim's 
award.
  I have been fighting on this for years, and it makes no sense that we 
could squander this moment with a bill that is so inadequate. George 
and Gayla and Ralph and Marv and Bret and Brian deserve so much better, 
and I will continue to fight for them.
  Regardless of what happens with this bill, the one thing we must do 
is ban asbestos, and I assure my colleagues that I will keep fighting 
for that. I do want to pass a law. We need a real solution. I don't 
want companies going bankrupt. I don't want victims going without the 
help they need. I still think we can do it, and I will continue to 
fight for a balanced and fair bill that will do right by victims across 
the country. We have an obligation to them and their families. I have 
been fighting for them for the last 3 years. No matter what happens 
this week, I am not going to stop now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I preface my remarks by saying my 
thoughts are with the victims of asbestos exposure, those families that 
have lost loved ones, and those that have to live with the debilitating 
illness caused by asbestos. They are at the forefront of my mind and in 
my heart as I discuss this issue of asbestos liability.
  I want to be sure the legislation we pass today will ensure that 
those truly sick individuals are allowed fair and just compensation. 
Without the passage of this legislation, they will not be compensated. 
As hundreds of companies will cascade into bankruptcy, we will lose 
thousands of good-paying jobs and see the pensions of thousands of 
retirees evaporate.
  Most people would agree that the issue of asbestos litigation and its 
aftermath is presenting a crisis in our country. With roughly 70 
companies already in bankruptcy and a slew of bankruptcies soon to 
follow, the U.S. Supreme Court had it right when they called this an 
elephantine mess.
  People need to understand this mess has far-reaching effects and 
ripples and they are being felt way beyond corporate boardrooms. They 
are being felt intensely by middle America, people from States such as 
Ohio, in the form of job loss. We have lost over 2.7 million 
manufacturing jobs in the United States. In my State alone, in July, 
there were 1 million manufacturing jobs in 2000, but by October 2003 
that fell to 840,000, 17.6 percent of our State's manufacturing 
employment, a loss of more than 1 out of every 6 Ohio factory jobs. 
These numbers represent a crisis for Ohio's economy. Already, roughly 
70 companies have been forced into bankruptcy with between 52,000 and 
60,000 jobs lost as a result.
  Shattered families and communities. The statistics are only the 
beginning as thousands of jobs were subsequently lost in industries 
dependent on those bankrupt firms. In fact, a recent study by Financial 
Institutions for Asbestos Reform and conducted by Navigant Consulting 
details the hidden cost of this crisis and shows how passage of Federal 
asbestos legislation would provide a tremendous boost to the economy 
and create jobs. Dr. William Kerr, author of the study, said the 
failure to enact legislation would reduce economic growth by $2.4 
billion per year. Failure to enact legislation could reduce economic 
growth by $2.4 billion per year, costing more than 30,000 jobs 
annually. Extended over a 27-year frame, as contemplated, this means 
the loss of more than 800,000 jobs and $64 billion in economic growth.
  Another study, entitled The Secondary Impacts of Asbestos 
Liabilities, conducted by NERA Economic Consulting for the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce, shows how asbestos lawsuits can cause secondary harm to 
businesses, governments, communities, and individuals. The study found 
the ripple effects of plant closures and mass layoffs, such as causing 
local real estate values to fall, per capita income to decline, and tax 
coffers to dwindle. The study estimates the total cost to taxpayers of 
unemployment insurance benefits to displaced workers for asbestos-
related bankruptcies at $80 million. The study put the indirect cost of 
the company closing due to asbestos liability at as much as $2.1 
billion. If nothing is done to resolve what has been described as the 
elephantine mess of asbestos litigation, scores, if not hundreds, of 
additional businesses will be forced into bankruptcies and tens of 
thousands of additional workers will find themselves unemployed. 
Retiree and workers who spent decades working for retirement will see 
their life savings vanish.
  This crisis can really be felt in my home State of Ohio. In fact, 
Ohio is the fifth biggest State in the country in terms of asbestos 
claims hanging around our court. In Cuyahoga County, more than 41,000 
asbestos cases have swamped the court system. At least 20 large Ohio 
companies, representing more than 80,000 employees, are the targets of 
asbestos litigation. Of course, over the past few years the circle of 
liability has expanded to pull in more and more solvent companies, many 
of which never manufactured or installed asbestos.
  There are numerous examples of Ohio companies negatively impacted by 
this crisis. Take the case of Federal Mogul, a company that employs 
over 1,200 in six cities through my State. Employees held 16 percent of 
the company stock. That stock lost 99 percent of its value. Current 
employees and also retirees feel the effects of the bankruptcies. Many 
retirees depend on company stock and dividends for income, and as this 
value heads south, retirees feel it immediately.
  Another company which does a lot for the Toledo area is Owens 
Corning. As Governor, I worked hard to get Owens Corning to put the new 
corporate headquarters in downtown Toledo to help facilitate the city 
of Toledo renaissance. Owens Corning, unfortunately, went bankrupt in 
2000. In the 2 years preceding this bankruptcy, the stock lost 97 
percent of its value. Fourteen percent of the stock was owned by 
company employees.
  Another Ohio company spoke with me off the record about its growing 
asbestos liability. When this company announced it had limited asbestos 
liability, the stock dropped by about 20 percent and its debt rating 
was lowered. This began a chain-reaction ripple effect that included 
the loss of over 100 jobs, the sale of assets, a 50-percent cut in 
capital investments, and a huge cut in the amount of contributions to 
the surrounding community.
  As a former mayor, I know firsthand the impact of what happens when 
companies go bankrupt. Many of us forget that these companies make a 
significant contribution to the tax revenues of the cities in which 
they are located, including their philanthropic contributions, such as 
United Way, arts, education, health care, and many other forms of 
community involvement. As I have said before, companies such as this 
one make up the backbone of the Ohio economy. They do not want to shirk 
their responsibility to those victims who will become sick truly 
because of asbestos exposure; they want to know that they are not 
compensating those individuals who are unimpaired.
  Ohio feels the crisis most acutely. It has so impacted my State of 
Ohio that the State legislature has decided to act where the Federal 
legislature has failed to do so. On December 11, 2003, the Ohio House 
of Representatives approved a bill to make Ohio the first in

[[Page 7198]]

the Nation to block suits by people exposed to potentially deadly 
asbestos but who have yet to fall ill. The bill would adopt State 
medical standards for such litigation, allowing lawsuits to be filed by 
those who have yet to develop cancer or suffer measurable loss of lung 
function to be placed on hold until they do actually develop the 
symptoms.
  I applaud the State of Ohio for recognizing the true magnitude of the 
threat to Ohio citizens and for not waiting for Washington to act. With 
the passage of this bill, Ohioans who are sick from asbestos exposure 
will go to the top of the court dockets where they belong. Finite 
resources will be available for those who need compensation most. The 
people who are now sick will be able to file claims.
  Now, if we could only get something done here. I have been working on 
this issue since I was elected to the Senate, and I have been a 
cosponsor to several pieces of legislation, including the Asbestos Tax 
Fairness Act and both versions of the Fairness in Asbestos Injury 
Resolution Act. I have testified twice before the Judiciary Committee 
on the need for this legislation. I have lobbied my colleagues in the 
administration on the need to see this bill passed.
  If we want to get something done, we need to do it now. Now is the 
time. We passed the FAIR Act out of the Judiciary Committee last summer 
and have spent the time between then and now negotiating to try to find 
a solution that everyone can support. That is almost a year that we 
have been negotiating back and forth trying to figure out something we 
think will be fair to everyone. The time has come for action. We cannot 
afford any more delays. The ever rising tide of corporate bankruptcies 
affect victims' compensation so that the truly sick asbestos victims in 
too many cases and more and more frequently only receive pennies on the 
dollar. In addition, employees of bankrupt companies suffer as they 
watch their jobs disappear and their pensions in 401(k) plans decrease 
dramatically. Again, we have to do something now, not later. Passage of 
this legislation will get us well on our way. And we have never come 
closer to resolving the asbestos litigation crisis than this 
legislation.
  This bill provides for a privately funded, no-fault, national 
asbestos victims compensation fund that will replace the broken tort 
system and ensure that individuals who are truly sick receive 
compensation quickly, fairly, and efficiently. It retains the 
bipartisan agreement on medical criteria that was approved unanimously 
by the Judiciary Committee. These criteria form the basis of a no-fault 
victims' compensation fund that will stop the flow of resources to the 
unimpaired and ensure that the truly ill will be paid quickly and 
fairly.
  The bill contains many improvements made to its predecessor and 
reflects the product of the last several months of extensive 
negotiations by the stakeholders in this debate--all of the 
stakeholders.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on this very important piece 
of legislation.
  On a broader scale, the litigation crisis in this country is like a 
tornado ripping its way through our economy. The American Tort Reform 
Association published a study in 2002 on the impact of litigation in 
Ohio and found that it costs every Ohioan $636 per year--that is every 
Ohioan, all 11.5 million. That is $636 a head. A large part of it is 
due to the issue that we have before us today, asbestos. We need to 
move immediately on this issue.
  In my opinion, passing responsible asbestos reform legislation to 
ensure that the truly injured receive fair and just compensation, and 
to prevent more companies from sliding into bankruptcy, will do far 
more for Ohio's economy than many other stimulus proposals we have been 
talking about on the floor of the Senate or in our respective 
committees.
  The consequences of inaction are grave. As previously mentioned, a 
large swath of corporate America is at risk, jeopardizing the jobs of 
thousands of employees, impoverishing retirees, and shattering families 
and communities. America's clear national interest lies in making sure 
asbestos funds are available for those who become sick and lifting an 
ominous cloud of litigation from our troubled economy.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


             False Advertisement By Special Interest Groups

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have to admit that I do not read the New 
York Times cover to cover each day. But from time to time, items in 
that paper do catch my attention. For instance, when a group runs a 
full-page advertisement, one cannot help but at least glance at the ad.
  A couple weeks ago, one such advertisement caught my attention. It 
was a full-page advertisement placed in the New York Times by two 
special interest groups: the Natural Resources Defense Council and 
Moveon.org. These two special interest groups are especially vocal and 
devoted solely to disparaging the environmental record of the Bush 
administration.
  I have an enlarged version of that advertisement that ran in the New 
York Times. It is chart 1. As you can see, it states, in large print: 
``First Arsenic, Now Mercury.'' It has pictures of President Bush 
alongside a powerplant billowing with smoke. The ad makes such claims 
as: the President's policies are the source for mercury contamination 
in fish and that the President is simply following the wishes of 
industry contributors. The ad makes direct statements such as: ``So why 
is President Bush trying to weaken controls on mercury pollution?''
  I am chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, so this 
ad was of particular interest to me for at least a couple reasons. To 
anyone reading this advertisement, the reader would naturally assume 
there must be some already existing controls on mercury emissions from 
powerplants because the ad explicitly claims that President Bush is 
trying to weaken those controls.
  How can you weaken controls if there are no controls to start with? 
So it is assuming there are controls existing. This claim is completely 
false. I believe this chart demonstrates that. The NRDC's lobbying 
claim is that the President is weakening controls on mercury emissions 
from powerplants. The facts, however, are very different.
  On December 15, 2003, this President proposed the first ever controls 
on mercury emissions from utilities. Now, keep in mind, there were no 
controls before, none whatsoever. How can you weaken controls if there 
are no controls there?
  The Clinton administration had 8 years to propose such controls and 
did not. In nearly 3,000 days as EPA Administrator, how many mercury 
regulations on powerplants did former EPA Administrator Carol Browner 
issue? Zero. Instead, in the last month of the eighth year of the 
Clinton administration, Carol Browner deftly handed a regulatory lemon 
to the Bush administration that she was unwilling to impose during the 
Clinton administration. What a courageous move.
  I am very proud that President Bush and his EPA Administrator, Mike 
Leavitt, have shown leadership where President Clinton and Carol 
Browner fumbled and failed. In fact, Administrator Leavitt testified 
before the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air in a 
hearing on April 1, 2004. In questioning, the Administrator ably drew 
the line between fact and fiction regarding the President's proposals 
regulating mercury from powerplants. I want to read to you one of his 
quotes. The Administrator explained:

       One fiction is that the EPA does not view mercury as a 
     toxin. The fact is mercury is a toxin and it needs to be 
     reduced. Another fiction is that somehow the agency is 
     seeking the Administration to roll back standards. The fact 
     is there has never been a standard, this will be the first 
     time that we will have regulated mercury from power plants in 
     our Nation's history and we want to do it right.


[[Page 7199]]


  Now, that is what Administrator Leavitt said, reemphasizing there has 
been no regulation on mercury.
  Why shouldn't we propose the right mercury rule based on sound 
science? There are no existing control standards for utility mercury 
emissions, so how can President Bush weaken a control standard for 
mercury that does not exist? That simply does not make sense.
  The NRDC has been a prominent national special interest group for 
many years. So why would the NRDC run such an ad that is completely 
false? I believe the answer to that question leads me to the second 
reason this ad was of particular interest to me.
  I had this advertisement enlarged to highlight one particular part of 
it. Keep in mind, this was a full-page ad that cost, as I understand 
it, around $110,000 for 1 day.
  This is what was on the bottom, if you will notice the perforated 
block at the end of the full-page ad circled in red. I especially 
wanted to highlight this portion of the ad pictured on the chart 
because this block is the reason why this ad ran. This perforated block 
is a contribution form. The contribution form states:

       Yes, I want to join the Natural Resources Defense Council 
     and help thwart President Bush's plan to weaken controls on 
     toxic mercury.

  This is the most important part:

       Here is my tax deductible gift of $ [blank].

  The form further states to ``make your check payable to the NRDC and 
mail it to the NRDC mercury campaign.''
  I believe it is bad enough to run a false advertisement, but to 
solicit charitable contributions based on that false advertisement is 
especially troubling. The New York Times is widely distributed in my 
home State of Oklahoma, as it is throughout the rest of the country. It 
would be very disturbing to learn that based on a false ad, people are 
scared into contributing.
  For the past several years, my State of Oklahoma has been rated in 
the top 25 percent of States for charitable contributions per gross 
income. It would greatly trouble me if even one of these contributors 
was misled by any charitable solicitation.
  The Council for Better Business Bureaus, a national organization, 
compiles a Wise Giving Alliance report authorizing a seal of approval 
to charities that meet the organization's standards. One of the 
standards the council has established to measure charities deals with 
solicitations by those charities. Part C of those standards states the 
following:

       1. Solicitations and informational materials, distributed 
     by any means, shall be accurate, truthful and not misleading, 
     both in whole and in part.
       2. Soliciting organizations shall substantiate on request 
     that solicitations and informational materials, distributed 
     by any means, are accurate, truthful and not misleading in 
     whole or in part.

  The NRDC, describing itself as a charity, should substantiate this 
false advertisement. The President has proposed the first controls on 
mercury emissions from powerplants, the first ever. The Better Business 
Bureau should hold the NRDC accountable for their purposefully 
misleading statements. However, NRDC's irresponsibility is sanctionable 
in other manners as well.
  Solicitations by charitable organizations are regulated in part by 
Federal statutes and case law. However, the solicitation of charitable 
contributions is mainly regulated by individual State law, and 
violations of solicitation statutes can be prosecuted under state law. 
Solicitation by charitable organizations is strictly regulated against 
fraud and misleading advertisement under the Oklahoma statutes. 
Oklahoma State law reads in relevant part:

       Any person [or organization] who attempts to solicit any 
     contribution as a charitable organization by means of 
     knowingly false or misleading advertisement shall lose its 
     status as a tax exempt organization and upon conviction be 
     guilty of a felony.

  This criminal liability extends to all officers and agents of the 
charity involved in the solicitation. We take this very seriously in 
Oklahoma. At least 40 other States have just as strict statutes against 
soliciting contributions by misleading advertising.
  Arguably this ad by NRDC may be unlawful in as many as 40 other 
States that also have charitable solicitation statutes. This 
advertisement by the NRDC and MoveOn.org explicitly states the 
President is weakening mercury standards while they are trying to 
swindle contributions from people all across the country who may see 
this advertisement. I don't know what else this ad represents, but 
specifically NRDC, which describes itself as a charitable organization 
on its Web site, soliciting contributions by making knowingly false 
statements to cheat people out of contributions--in Oklahoma, that 
could make you a felon.
  The most shocking part of this is not even that NRDC is running a 
completely false ad or NRDC is running a completely false ad simply to 
fleece people for contributions; the most shocking part is the American 
taxpayer subsidizes the NRDC hundreds of thousands of dollars each year 
to conduct this type of activity. Public IRS records for the last 
several years demonstrate NRDC regularly receives thousands of Federal 
grant dollars each year. In 2002, the NRDC received more than a half 
million dollars in government grants. In 2003, the NRDC was 
additionally awarded more than half a million dollars again in 
government grants. The cycle continues year after year after year.
  The Environment and Public Works Committee has oversight jurisdiction 
over several Federal agencies. I believe my committee has the 
obligation to ensure Federal funds allocated to these agencies are used 
responsibly.
  One agency in particular under the jurisdiction of the committee I 
chair, the Committee on the Environment and Public Works, is the 
Environmental Protection Agency. The committee has the responsibility 
to assure American taxpayers their money is going toward accomplishing 
the EPA's mission of protecting human health and the environment.
  On March 3, my committee held its first hearing into the matter in 
which EPA allocates grants each year. The EPA is a granting agency, 
allocating more than half of its $8 billion annual budget in grants to 
State, local, tribal governments, educational institutions, nonprofit 
organizations, and a variety of other recipients. I announced at the 
hearing the committee was going to take its oversight responsibilities 
seriously in regard to grants management, and I intend to take this 
responsibility seriously until real changes are made in grants 
management.
  The committee heard testimony of problems with grants management. I 
am confident we will begin to make real changes with the leadership of 
the Bush administration and Administrator Leavitt.
  However, the NRDC, for example, has made it a matter of doing 
business to apply for Federal grant awards that I believe help 
subsidize it to run ads such as this one. It costs more than $110,000 a 
day to run a full-page ad in the New York Times. The NRDC and 
MoveOn.org are spending thousands of dollars to purposely misrepresent 
the Bush environmental record and scare people into contributing based 
on those false representations.
  I am announcing that I am sending letters today to the two largest 
judicial jurisdictions in Oklahoma and requesting those district 
attorneys to investigate the legality of this advertisement in 
Oklahoma. I am also sending a letter to the Better Business Bureau 
requesting that organization to more carefully consider this false 
advertisement in their rating of the NRDC in awarding their Wise Giving 
Alliance seal and ask that it formally request NRDC to substantiate its 
baseless claim.
  I ask unanimous consent that all three letters be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         U.S. Senate, Committee on


                                 Environment and Public Works,

                                   Washington, DC, April 21, 2004.
     Hon. Tim Harris,
     District Attorney, Tulsa County Courthouse,
     Tulsa, OK.
       Dear Tim: I am writing to bring to your attention an 
     advertisement that ran in the

[[Page 7200]]

     New York Times on March 26, 2004. A copy of this 
     advertisement is attached to this letter. I wanted to 
     highlight issues of concern to me in this advertisement. The 
     New York Times is widely distributed in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 
     throughout Oklahoma, and the rest of the country. This 
     advertisement makes claims that due to President Bush's 
     policies concerning environmental protection specifically 
     concerned regulations on mercury emissions from public 
     utilities, more toxic mercury will be emitted into the air. 
     It pictures President Bush next to a picture of a power plant 
     billowing with smoke, and specifically solicits contributions 
     to the Natural Resources Defense Council, a IRS designated 
     501(c)(3) organization, to ``help thwart President Bush's 
     plan to weaken controls on toxic mercury.''
       As you are aware, I am Chairman of the U.S. Senate 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works, so this 
     advertisement was of particular interest to me. One of the 
     issues before this Congress is regulation emissions from 
     power plants. President Bush has proposed the first controls 
     on toxic mercury emissions from utilities. Currently there 
     are no existing controls on mercury emissions from utilities. 
     The Clinton Administration had eight years to propose such 
     controls and did not. I believe NRDC's claim that President 
     Bush is trying to weaken control on mercury pollution is 
     completely false and simply an effort to raise contributions.
       It is irresponsible enough that NRDC runs false 
     advertising, however, it is also attempting to solicit 
     contributions as a 501(c)(3) and self-described charitable 
     organization.
       I understand that there are federal statues governing 
     charitable solicitations, but I also know that Oklahoma state 
     statutes address perceived false solicitation by a charitable 
     organization under The Oklahoma Solicitation of Charitable 
     Contributions Act (18 Okl.St.Ann. Sec. 552.1 et seq). What I 
     find particularly interesting is the penalties section of the 
     Act stating the following:
       ``Any person who solicits or attempts to solicit any 
     contribution as a charitable organization or for a charitable 
     purpose by means of knowingly false or misleading 
     representation, advertisement or promise or any person 
     violating the provisions of this act, including the filing of 
     false information hereunder, shall lose its status as a tax-
     exempt organization, and shall be taxed in the same manner 
     and at the same rate as any other corporation, and shall upon 
     conviction be guilty of a felony punishable by a fine not to 
     exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment in 
     the State Penitentiary for not more than two (2) years, or by 
     both such fine and imprisonment, and every officer or agent 
     of a charitable organization who authorizes or conducts 
     illegal solicitations shall be jointly and severally liable 
     for such fine.'' (18 Okl.St.Ann. Sec. 552.18).
       I know that your office is continually engaged in 
     prosecuting hundreds of felony cases each year with 
     tremendous success. As a resident of your jurisdiction, I 
     appreciate the work of your office. Any attention that your 
     office could provide to this matter would be greatly 
     appreciated. I intend to highlight the irresponsible 
     activities, like the enclosed advertisement, by groups like 
     NRDC that the federal government subsidizes with hundreds of 
     thousands of taxpayer dollars in grants and other financial 
     assistance each year.
       Thank you again for your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James M. Inhofe,
     Chairman.
                                  ____


   First Arsenic Now Mercury--George Bush's EPA and the Politics of 
                               Pollution

       America learned this week that tuna, and many other fish, 
     can contain harmful levels of toxic mercury. Forty-five 
     states already post warnings of mercury contamination in 
     their lakes and streams. So why is President Bush trying to 
     weaken controls on mercury pollution?
       It's deja vu all over again. Early in his presidency, 
     George Bush tried to allow more arsenic in drinking water. 
     Now, he wants the EPA to let coal-fired power plants treat 
     their mercury pollution as ``non-hazardous'' even though 
     mercury threatens pregnant women and children.
       The Bush administration's ploy would allow coal-fired power 
     plants to put more mercury into the air, where it rains down 
     on lakes and oceans, is swallowed by fish, and could wind up 
     on your plate. Exposure to mercury can cause learning 
     disabilities and neurological damage in kids and the 
     developing fetus.
       Guess who is praising this scheme? Coal power companies, 
     who are big mercury polluters and big political contributors, 
     too.


                        the mercury money trail

       The big mercury polluters and their trade associations are 
     aggressive political players in Washington. Their executives 
     and PACs are also generous political donors. It's no surprise 
     that the Bush administration is following the industry's 
     script for weakening mercury regulations.
       Last time around, President Bush had to back down on 
     arsenic in the face of a massive outcry from people across 
     the political spectrum.
       Let's make history repeat itself.
       Tell President Bush to get serious about reducing mercury 
     pollution. Our kids deserve no less. Let the Bush 
     administration and the EPA hear your voice about its proposed 
     mercury rule. Go to www.nrdc.org--NRDC, MoveOn.org, Democracy 
     in Action.
                                  ____

                                         U.S. Senate, Committee on


                                 Environment and Public Works,

                                   Washington, DC, April 21, 2004.
     Hon. Wes Lane,
     District Attorney, Oklahoma County Courthouse, Oklahoma City, 
         OK.
       Dear West: I am writing to bring to your attention an 
     advertisement that ran in the New York Times on March 26, 
     2004. A copy of this advertisement is attached to this 
     letter. I wanted to highlight issues of concern to me in this 
     advertisement. The New York Times is widely distributed in 
     Oklahoma City, throughout Oklahoma, and the rest of the 
     country. This advertisement makes claims that due to 
     President Bush's policies concerning environmental protection 
     specifically concerning regulations on mercury emissions from 
     public utilities, more toxic mercury will be emitted into the 
     air. It pictures President Bush next to a picture of a power 
     plant billowing with smoke, and specifically solicits 
     contributions to the Natural Resources Defense Council, a IRS 
     designated 501(c)(3) organization, to ``help thwart President 
     Bush's plan to weaken controls on toxic mercury.''
       As you are aware, I am Chairman of the U.S. Senate 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works, so this 
     advertisement was of particular interest to me. One of the 
     being considered before this Congress is regulation on 
     emissions from power plants. President Bush has proposed the 
     first controls on toxic mercury emissions from utilities. 
     Currently there are no existing controls on mercury emissions 
     from public utilities. The Clinton Administration had eight 
     years to propose such controls and did not. I believe NRDC's 
     claim that President Bush is trying to weaken control on 
     mercury pollution is completely false and simply an effort to 
     raise contributions.
       It is irresponsible enough that NRDC runs false 
     advertising, however, it is also attempting to solicit 
     contributions as a 501(c)(3) organization and self-described 
     charitable organization.
       I understand that there are federal statutes governing 
     charitable solicitations, but I also know that Oklahoma state 
     statues address perceived false solicitation by a charitable 
     organization under The Oklahoma Solicitation of Charitable 
     Contributions Act (18 Okl.St.Ann. Sec. 552.1 et seq). What I 
     find particularly interesting is the penalties section of the 
     Act stating the following:
       Any person who solicits or attempts to solicit any 
     contribution as a charitable organization or for a charitable 
     purpose by means of knowingly false or misleading 
     representation, advertisement or promise or any person 
     violating the provisions of this act, including the filing of 
     false information hereunder, shall lose its status as a tax-
     exempt organization, and shall be taxed in the same manner 
     and at the same rate as any other corporation, and shall upon 
     conviction be guilty of a felony punishable by a fine not to 
     exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment in 
     the State Penitentiary for not more than two (2) years, or by 
     both such fine and imprisonment, and every officer or agent 
     of a charitable organization who authorizes or conducts 
     illegal solicitations shall be jointly and severally liable 
     for such fine.'' (18 Okl.St.Ann. Sec. 552.18).
       I know that your office is continually engaged in 
     prosecuting hundreds of felony cases each year with 
     tremendous success. Any attention that your office could 
     provide to this matter would be greatly appreciated. I intend 
     to highlight the irresponsible activities, like the enclosed 
     advertisement, by groups like NRDC that the federal 
     government subsidizes with hundreds of thousands of taxpayer 
     dollars by way of grants and other financial assistance each 
     year.
       Thank you again for your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James M. Inhofe,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         U.S. Senate, Committee on


                                 Environment and Public Works,

                                   Washington, DC, April 21, 2004.
      Mr. Ken Hunter,
      Council of Better Business Bureaus, Wilson Blvd., Arlington, 
         VA.
        Dear Mr. Hunter: I am writing to bring to your attention 
     an advertisement that ran in the New York Times on March 26, 
     2004. A copy of this advertisement is attached to this 
     letter. I wanted to highlight issues of concern to me in this 
     advertisement. The New York Times is widely distributed 
     throughout the country. This advertisement makes claims that 
     due to President Bush's policies concerning environmental 
     protection specifically concerning regulations on mercury 
     emissions from public utilities, more toxic mercury will be 
     emitted into the air. It pictures President Bush next to a 
     picture of a power plant billowing with smoke, and 
     specifically solicits contributions to the Natural Resources 
     Defense Council, a IRS designated 501(c)(3) organization, to 
     ``help thwart President Bush's plan to weaken controls on 
     toxic mercury.''
        As Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment 
     and Public Works, this advertisement was of particular 
     interest to me.

[[Page 7201]]

     One of the issues considered before the Congress is multi-
     emissions legislation. On December 15, 2003, the 
     Environmental Protection Agency proposed the first controls 
     on toxic mercury emissions from power plants. Currently there 
     are no existing controls on mercury emissions from public 
     utilities. I believe NRDC's claim that President Bush is 
     trying to weaken controls on mercury pollution is completely 
     false and simply an effort to raise contributions.
        It is irresponsible enough that NRDC runs false 
     advertising, however, it is also attempting to solicit 
     contributions as a 501(c)(3) organization and self-described 
     charitable organization.
        I understand that the council for Better Business Bureaus 
     rates charities by its Wise Giving Alliance standards 
     requiring that solicitations be ``accurate, truthful, and not 
     misleading in whole and in part'' and that charities be 
     required to substantiate all claims. I request that the 
     Council require the NRDC to substantiate its claims and 
     consider this false advertisement in future ratings of this 
     charity.
        Thank you for your attention to this matter.
            Sincerely,
                                                  James M. Inhofe,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. INHOFE. A couple years ago, I read a series of articles in the 
Sacramento Bee highlighting the facade of many environmental groups. 
The article made the point that today's environmental groups, like 
NRDC, are more about their own prosperity than environmental 
protection. I still have those articles in my office. I thought one 
particular quote was especially fitting.
  The author wrote of environmental groups:

       Competition for money and members is keen. Litigation is 
     blood sport. Crises, real or not, is a commodity, and slogans 
     and sound bites masquerade as scientific fact.

  That quote was written in 2001. It is still more true today in 2004. 
But it is not something new. That quote captures the way NRDC and its 
cohorts have been doing business for years. They should be responsible. 
They should be truthful. This type of activity goes beyond what the 
NRDC does with Federal tax dollars, but I intend to explore what NRDC 
and groups like it are also publishing and the extent of the rampant 
false claims made by these groups the American taxpayers help to fund 
each year.
  We are not going to allow this to continue. They are getting into the 
types of discretionary grants we are dealing with through the EPA and 
other agencies. It is shameful that it is going on. We are now in a 
position, with the committee I chair, to do something about it. We 
intend to do that.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, might I inquire as to how much time I 
would have to speak on the floor now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Iowa has been allotted 15 minutes to speak in morning business.


                   Refocusing Our Health Care System

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, last week the Labor, Health, and Human 
Services Subcommittee of Appropriations held a hearing in my State of 
Iowa. I wanted to learn more about the medical and financial 
ramifications of chronic conditions such as obesity, tobacco use, 
mental illness, and lack of physical activity. I come away from that 
hearing and other hearings that we have had in Washington, and others 
we have had going back probably over a dozen years, even more convinced 
that we need to refocus our health care system toward wellness and 
prevention. I am convinced now more than ever that we really do not 
have a health care system in America. We have a ``sick care system'' in 
America. I will say more about that in a moment.
  At the hearing and at others before that, we heard the familiar 
litany of grim statistics associated with these chronic conditions. But 
we also heard from Iowans, students and adults, who are taking matters 
into their own hands, doing innovative things to promote wellness and 
healthier living in their communities.
  In the United States we spend in excess of $1.5 trillion a year on 
health care. Fully 75 percent of that total is accounted for by chronic 
diseases, such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes. What these diseases 
have in common is, in so many cases, they are preventable. In the 
United States we fail to make an up-front investment in prevention, so 
we end up spending hundreds of billions on hospitalization, treatment, 
and disability.
  This is foolish, and clearly is unsustainable. We need a new paradigm 
in American health care. We need a prevention paradigm. As I said, 
right now we have a sick care system in the United States. If you get 
sick, one way or another you get care, either through health insurance 
or through Medicaid, Medicare, or something like that. Of course we 
know we have 43 million uninsured who do not have access, even, many 
times, to our sick care system. But what we need is a genuine health 
care system, a system focused on wellness and prevention, a system 
focused on keeping you healthy in the first place.
  Consider the cost of major chronic diseases, diseases that in many 
cases are preventable. The annual costs for cardiovascular disease are 
about $352 billion; for obesity, $117 billion a year; for diabetes, 
$132 billion a year; for smoking, more than $75 billion a year; and for 
untreated mental illness, $79 billion a year. Indeed, major depression 
is the leading cause of disability in the United States.
  If I bought a new car and I drove that car off the lot and I never 
maintained it, I never checked the oil, I never changed the oil, I 
never checked the transmission fluid, never got it tuned up, I just 
drove it, you would think I was crazy, not to mention grossly 
irresponsible. The commonsense principle with an automobile is: Pay a 
little now, keep it maintained, or you are going to pay a whole lot 
later for a new engine.
  It is the same with our national health priorities. Right now our 
system is in a downward spiral. We are not paying a little now so we 
are paying a whole lot later. If we are serious about bringing down 
health care costs, we must get people access to preventive care. We 
must give people the tools they need to stay healthy. We must build 
incentives throughout the entire society, incentives for prevention and 
wellness. This will take a sustained commitment from government, 
schools, communities, employers, health officials, and of course the 
food industries. But this can have a huge payoff for individuals and 
families, for employers, for society, and for the economy at large.
  One condition in particular is fast becoming our Nation's leading 
public health threat: being overweight and obesity. Several weeks ago a 
new study came out that confirms what many of us already know. Obesity, 
unhealthy diets, and lack of physical activity have made us a nation at 
risk. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did a study that 
determined that poor diet and lack of physical activity are now the 
second leading cause of death in the United States, contributing to at 
least 400,000 deaths annually.
  I think this chart shows the startling statistics very clearly. This 
is from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The actual 
cause of death in the United States in 1990 from tobacco was 400,000. 
By the year 2000 the cause of death by tobacco was 435,000. But look at 
this. Poor diet and physical inactivity, in 1990: 300,000 deaths; by 
2000, 400,000 deaths. So while the cause of death from tobacco use had 
gone up less than 10 percent in 10 years, the cause of death from poor 
diet, obesity, and physical inactivity went up 33 percent in one 
decade. It is now the second leading cause of death in the United 
States.
  One of the authors of this study was the Director of the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Julie Gerberding. The media and the 
American public increasingly recognize this growing crisis. Seemingly 
every day I open the paper and read about the public health impacts of 
chronic disease. A

[[Page 7202]]

recent cover of the Economist magazine hit the nail on the head. If we 
don't act now and act aggressively, the progress we have made in 
promoting health and fighting disease, all of the public health gains 
we have made in the last couple of hundred years, will be totally wiped 
away.
  I thought this illustration from the Economist showed the progress of 
humankind as we became more and more like modern man--and then here we 
are, descending into obesity and overweight. That was the cover of the 
Economist last December entitled ``The Shape of Things to Come.'' Of 
course, here he is, drinking his supersized soft drink, walking down 
the road to chronic illness and disease.
  In 1990, 1997, and 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention did a State-by-State obesity prevalence study. I am going to 
show three charts which are startling in how they depict what is 
happening just in the last 14 years in the United States. The first 
chart I will put up is obesity in the United States among adults in 
1990. In 1990, the dark shaded areas here are obesity rates between 10 
percent and 14 percent. The light blue areas are States where we have 
less than 10 percent incidence of obesity. For the white States we just 
didn't have data. But as you can see, in 1990 no State had a prevalence 
of obesity over 15 percent--not one. All of the States were less than 
15 percent or less than 10 percent. That was in 1990.
  Now let's take a look at 1997. By 1997, here we have some orange 
States coming up now which we didn't see in 1990. The orange States 
mean that the prevalence of obesity is over 15 percent. Now we have 
these States with a prevalence of obesity over 15 percent. Remember all 
those blue States that were less than 15 percent? It is now 15 to 20 
percent. So all of the dark areas are now over 15 percent. And only a 
few States here are from 10 percent to 15 percent, but no State has an 
incidence of less than 10 percent now. That is just in less than 7 
years. That is 1997. Keep in mind now we have these three States, and 
the majority of the States now are between 15 and 20 percent.
  Let's take a look at what happened in 2002. Here is the real shocker. 
Look at all the orange States. These are the States now where the 
incidence of obesity is 20 percent to 24 percent. Now we have three red 
States where the incidence is over 25 percent. We have a few States 
here below 20 percent. Now we have no States less than 15 percent.
  If I could have the first chart of 1990, I want to show the 
comparison. Here we have in 1990 no States with an incidence of obesity 
of over 15 percent. By 2002, according to the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, three States are over 25 percent, the vast 
majority of States are over 20 percent, and the rest of the country 
over 15 percent. In 1990, we didn't have one State that fit the pattern 
we see in the United States now. That is what has happened in 14 years. 
Now we see even some States exceeding 25 percent. We see the trend.
  Actually, the story is even worse than this. The data on these charts 
is based on self-reported weight, which tends to be significantly 
understated, as you might imagine. As catastrophic as this chart of 
2002 appears, it actually understates the extent of the obesity 
epidemic. If you use reported data rather than self-reported, obesity 
rates are much higher. In fact, using this scientific approach, we 
learned that almost two out of every three Americans are either 
overweight or obese. Think about that. Right now, only one in three 
Americans is within their weight range for their height.
  Obesity takes a terrible toll on a person's health. It can lead to 
diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer, and numerous 
other chronic diseases. Incredibly, obesity causes more chronic 
conditions than either smoking or alcoholism.
  This is what this chart shows. This is again from the Centers for 
Disease Control. We have a higher incidence of the number of chronic 
conditions associated with health behavior. The No. 1 incidence of 
chronic condition is aging. The older you get, the more liable you are 
to get a chronic condition. Aging from 30 to 50 has the highest 
incidence of a chronic disease. Second only to that is obesity, and it 
is almost the same. Being obese is like aging from 30 to 50. If you are 
30 years old and you are obese, you might as well be 50 years old in 
terms of susceptibility to a chronic disease.
  Here is smoking. It is down here quite a ways. Just being overweight 
is down here. Drinking, past smoker, and obesity. In fact, right now 
obesity is, as I said, the second largest killer of people in this 
country.
  Thus far, Congress has not been willing to adequately take on the 
challenge of obesity and the challenge of encouraging healthy choices 
and lifestyles. It is time for the Senate to lead in a new direction by 
encouraging wellness and prevention.
  To that end, I am currently working with others on several 
initiatives to create a healthier workplace and a healthier environment 
for our Senate family. In March, I sent a letter to the Senate Rules 
Committee to request that signs be placed next to elevator buttons and 
at the entrances to stairwells and at the base of escalators 
encouraging people to use the stairs. Just the other day, I heard 
someone on the elevator say they wanted to use the stairs, but they 
didn't because they couldn't find them.
  The other day I happened to visit Secretary Thompson down at HHS. 
They have signs right there by the elevators and the doors encouraging 
people to take a flight of stairs rather than riding the elevator.
  I have also been in discussions with the Senate cafeteria on the 
matter of food labeling. To their credit, they already have food 
labeling available on their Web site. But I would like to see the 
Senate cafeteria go the next step by including nutrition information on 
menus or handouts that customers can pick up when they enter one of the 
Senate restaurants. If Ruby Tuesday's can do it and put all of the 
information on their menus, why can't we in the Senate cafeterias?
  I have also developed what I called the ``Harkin Health Challenge'' 
to promote wellness for my staff here and back in Iowa. This is a 
comprehensive workplace wellness program that addresses stress 
management, nutrition, physical, wellness screenings, and, of course, 
smoking cessation.
  Some believe there should be no role for the government in curbing 
obesity. Some believe this is a matter of personal responsibility. I 
don't agree. We can take steps to encourage and facilitate healthy 
lifestyles. We can make sure ordinary Americans have the tools and 
information they need to make informed healthy choices and be more 
responsible for their own health.
  We are about to pass a highway bill of approximately $300 billion for 
highways, roads, and bridges. We tried to get an attachment to that 
bill to promote bike paths along our highways. I saw a figure the other 
day about how much less young people ride bikes today than they did 15 
or 20 years ago. Ask yourselves as you drive down one of our busy 
thoroughfares or streets: Would you ride a bike down there during rush 
hour traffic? Of course not. You look to the side and there are no bike 
paths. There are no walkways for people to have access. We have streets 
now that do not even have sidewalks by them, let alone a bike path. I 
think when we invest taxpayers' money to build highways, roads, and 
bridges, we ought to mandate that, as a part of that, there ought to be 
an access for bike and/or walking paths next to those streets.
  I have already introduced legislation that would require menu 
labeling in chain restaurants, but I can already hear objections that 
this will be too expensive. It will be a burden on businesses, for 
example, to put all of their information on menus. I mentioned that 
Ruby Tuesday's already announced plans to implement food labeling in 
its restaurants. Clearly they don't consider this to be too expensive. 
They made a hardheaded corporate decision that it was both doable and 
good for business.
  I remember the same objections which were raised when Congress first 
passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act to require labeling of 
retail

[[Page 7203]]

foods and packaged foods. But lo and behold, years later, the sky has 
not fallen. To the contrary, consumers like labeling. When they go into 
the grocery store, they pick up boxes, cans, and packages and they read 
the nutrition labeling. They rely on those labels to help them make 
informed healthy choices.
  Consumers say they want nutrition information available when they 
make menu selections at restaurants. Yet, while they have access to 
excellent nutrition information at supermarkets when they go to buy 
packaged foods, when they go to a restaurant, consumers have to resort 
to guessing and estimating.
  What about our special responsibility to the children? The food 
industry spends more than $12 billion a year bombarding our kids with 
advertisements through television, movies, magazines, and the Internet. 
I don't have to tell you that they are not advertising broccoli and 
apples and orange juice. The majority of these ads are for candy and 
fast food--foods that are higher in sugar, salt, fat, and calories.
  Today, specialty marketing firms have made a science out of 
influencing children to buy a particular candy or to go to a particular 
fast-food restaurant. Yes, parents have a responsibility to shield 
their kids from harmful influences of all kinds. But what about 
corporate responsibility? What about corporate ethics? What about our 
Government's responsibility to make sure our children have a healthy 
environment?
  Children, especially those under 8 years of age, don't always have 
the ability to distinguish fact from fiction. The number of TV ads that 
kids see over the course of their childhood has doubled from 20,000 to 
40,000; meanwhile, the percentage of children who are overweight or 
obese has also doubled. The percentage of overweight or obese teens 
has, in fact, tripled. The United States right now has a higher 
percentage of overweight teens than any other industrialized country.
  We also need to take steps to reduce the junk food that our children 
are getting at schools. The GAO found that 43 percent of elementary 
schools, 74 percent of middle schools, and 98 percent of high schools 
have vending machines, school snack bars, or other food sources outside 
of the school lunch and school breakfast programs. We know that when 
kids have access to vending machines and snack bars and a la carte 
lines at school, bad things happen. Kids' consumption of milk, fruits, 
and vegetables goes down, and their intake of sodas and fried foods 
skyrockets. This is one more area where Congress has a responsibility 
to intervene to protect our children.
  I had this brought home to me the other day when it was pointed out 
that a 20-ounce size soft drink--Coke, Pepsi, all the soft drinks--has 
the equivalent of 15 teaspoons of sugar. I ask: As a parent, would you 
send your kid to school during the day and say, Here are 15 teaspoons 
of sugar, please eat this. No parent would want to do that. Yet when 
that kid goes to school and buys a 20-ounce soft drink, that is exactly 
what they are getting. And they will probably have two of them during 
the day. That is 30 teaspoons of sugar in 1 day.
  Go home, take 15 teaspoons of sugar, put it in a cup and see if you 
would like to eat that. Or do 30 teaspoons, the equivalent of what a 
lot of kids are drinking today. No wonder obesity among teenagers has 
tripled. No wonder our teenagers in this country are more obese than 
teenagers in any other industrialized country in the world.
  We have a responsibility; parents have a responsibility; schools have 
a responsibility. But it is Congress that funds the school lunch and 
school breakfast programs and the nutrition programs. This year we will 
reauthorize the nutrition program, school lunches and school 
breakfasts. We will reauthorize that this year.
  What will we do as Senators and Congressmen to help promote healthier 
eating and healthier lifestyle choices among our kids in school? Do we 
have a responsibility? You bet we do. I hope we will step up to that 
responsibility when the nutrition reauthorization bill comes through 
the committee to the Senate.
  In the coming months, I will be announcing a package of bills and 
initiatives focusing on wellness, focusing on preventing chronic 
diseases. The emphasis will be on nutrition, physical activity, mental 
health, tobacco cessation. It will stress prevention, consumer 
awareness, responsible marketing practices, and wellness programs in 
schools, communities, and the workplace.
  We face an obesity epidemic. We face an explosion of largely 
preventable chronic diseases. We face health care costs and health 
insurance premiums that are skyrocketing. All of these things are 
related. We have to meet our responsibilities. We as Senators must set 
a good example: Walk more, use the stairs more, have information on all 
of our menus in all of our Senate cafeterias so we know exactly how 
much trans fats, calories, sodium we are getting with each meal 
ordered, and also to do what we can in our official capacity to help 
support wellness and to support healthy lifestyles among our kids in 
school and at daycare centers. That is where it starts. If we can get 
the kids and teach them healthier lifestyles, healthier eating choices 
early on, chances are that is what they will follow when they grow 
older.
  It seems to me the golden rule of holes is this: When you are in a 
hole and you find it is getting up to your shoulders or up to your 
head, stop digging. We have dug one whopper of a hole in health care in 
this country by failing to emphasize prevention and wellness. It is 
time to stop digging. It is time to focus our attention on healthy 
lifestyle, prevention, wellness, providing incentives for businesses.
  I hear about tax incentives for business to do this, and that we need 
more tax incentives for businesses to provide wellness and prevention 
programs at the worksite for people who work in small and large 
businesses. We need to provide the kind of support for our public 
schools to provide better choices for our kids, also.
  I thank the indulgence of the Chair. I wanted to take this time to 
talk about this and to alert my fellow Senators that I will be 
introducing a package of wellness bills and I have been working with 
the majority leader, a doctor, Senator Frist, on some of these items, 
especially about getting signs posted about trying to use the stairs 
more often, about getting Senators wearing pedometers and doing more 
walking, for us to set a good example for the rest of the country.
  I am hopeful we can also use the nutrition reauthorization bill this 
year to make some changes in how we approach how kids eat and what they 
eat at school and what is available to them in terms of vending 
machines, soft drinks, sugar, salt, that type of thing, and to get them 
eating healthier at an early age.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  iraq

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it is the poet T.S. Eliot who reminds us, as 
if we needed to be reminded, that ``April is the cruelest month.'' How 
prescient his words ring this April 2004, as we reflect upon the 
deepening crisis and the steadily mounting death toll in Iraq. This 
April, this month in which millions of Americans marked the holiest 
season of the Judeo-Christian calendar, has been an unholy nightmare 
for American military forces and American policy in Iraq.
  April 2004, 11 months after the President proclaimed the end of major 
combat operations in Iraq, has proved to be the deadliest month for 
American forces in Iraq since the onset of the war more than a year 
ago. Major combat operations may have ended--let me repeat that: major 
combat operations may have ended--as President Bush asserted nearly 1 
year ago, but major combat casualties have not. The ``Mission 
Accomplished'' banner under

[[Page 7204]]

which President Bush spoke so confidently on May 1, 2003, has come back 
to haunt us and to taunt us many times over.
  In the weeks and months leading up to the war, Americans were assured 
by President Bush and his cadre of top advisers--most particularly Vice 
President Richard Cheney--that we would be greeted as liberators in 
Iraq, our path to victory strewn with cheers and flowers. Those 
flowers, it now appears, are less like rose petals tossed at the feet 
of liberators and more like Eliot's mournful April lilacs--``Lilacs out 
of the deadland, mixing Memory and desire, stirring Dull roots with 
spring rain.''
  April--April--has indeed become the cruelest month. Memory and desire 
cannot supplant reality in Iraq. More than 100 American military 
personnel have been killed in Iraq so far this month, the highest 
number of deaths in a single month since the beginning of the war. In 
all, more than 700 American military members have died in Iraq since 
the beginning of combat. Today, more than 1 year after the fall of 
Baghdad, America's military forces are being greeted in too many 
quarters of Iraq, not with flowers--not with flowers, not with 
flowers--but with gunfire, not with cheers but with jeers, nor as 
liberators but as occupiers--occupiers--oppressors.
  In the harsh glare of hindsight, it is now clear that the President's 
preconceived notions of the war and the aftermath of the war in Iraq 
were profoundly flawed. Even the President's Secretary of Defense--one 
of the supreme architects of the war in Iraq--has been forced to admit 
that the battle has not gone according to the plan, that the level of 
casualties, continuing so long after the fall of Baghdad, was neither 
anticipated nor planned for before the invasion.
  And yet President Bush refuses to admit any flaws in his grand 
strategy to invade Iraq to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein 
without giving adequate consideration to the potential perils awaiting 
America in the seething streets and towns of post-war Iraq. Despite the 
fact that debate over the war in Iraq rages worldwide, despite the fact 
that the American occupation is reeling from unexpected opposition from 
the very people it was intended to liberate, still the President is 
hard pressed under questioning to come up with any mistakes that he 
might have made in dealing with Iraq. What a sad, sad commentary.
  In his press conference last week, President Bush acknowledged 
``tough weeks'' in Iraq, but he clung to his oft-repeated assertion 
that Iraq is mostly stable, and shrugged off the violence of recent 
weeks as the work of a small faction of fanatical ``thugs'' and 
terrorists bent on imposing their will over the popular will of Iraq.
  In this assessment, I hope and pray that the President is right.
  For the sake of America's military families, for the sake of the 
mothers and fathers, for the sake of the wives and children who have 
had to bear the burden of the increased violence in Iraq, I hope the 
President is right.
  I hope that Iraq achieves stability and security soon. For while Iraq 
and the world may indeed be better off with Saddam Hussein behind bars, 
alas--alas--I do not believe that an Iraq in turmoil is either a boon 
to the Middle East or an asset to the security of the United States.
  Instead of reflecting candidly on the current challenges in Iraq, 
President Bush would prefer to focus on his grandiose, grandiloquent 
vision for reforming the Middle East. In this he speaks in ideological, 
almost messianic, cadences as he paints a picture of Iraq as a central 
front not just in the war on terror but also in a battle of Biblical 
proportions pitting ``good'' against ``evil.''
  President Bush is a man of absolutes. Either we stay the course in 
Iraq or we cut and run. Those are the two choices: stay the course or 
cut and run. Either we fight terrorists on the streets of Iraq or we 
fight them on the streets of New York or Washington, DC. Either we 
support President Bush's policies absolutely or we give aid and comfort 
to the enemy. Those are the two choices. Do you believe it? I don't.
  No, no, no, a thousand times no. Either-or propositions like those 
invoked by the President to describe the war in Iraq are nothing more 
than politically inspired slogans like last year's ill-advised 
``Mission Accomplished'' banner, designed to whip up emotions while 
masking the complexity of national security considerations.
  Fighting in the streets of Iraq has not prevented terrorists from 
striking in Saudi Arabia or Bali or Madrid. Are you with me? And there 
is no guarantee--none--that it will prevent them from striking again in 
the United States. Just this week, Homeland Security Secretary Tom 
Ridge disclosed the formation of a Federal task force to respond to 
heightened threats that al-Qaida will strike again in the United 
States, sometime before the November election. Significant events, 
including the dedication of the World War II Memorial in Washington and 
the political conventions in New York and Boston, are among those 
viewed as prime targets for a new al-Qaida offensive.
  This is the sobering reality. Osama bin Laden remains at large, and 
his minions appear to be multiplying, not diminishing. That is 
sobering. That ought to curl your hair.
  If anything, the war in Iraq has served as a rallying cry for anti-
American and antidemocratic extremists in the Middle East and beyond. 
Sadly, given the distraction from the war on terror that the war in 
Iraq has proved itself to be, the capture or killing of Osama bin 
Laden, when and if it comes, is likely to be an anticlimactic footnote 
to a widening and ever more deadly surge in independent national 
terrorism. Mark my words.
  Despite the often invoked and patently misleading conclusion drawn by 
the Bush administration, cutting and running is not the only 
alternative to staying the course in Iraq, especially when that course 
is fraught with disaster. Altering a flawed and dangerous course of 
action, seeking meaningful support from the international community, is 
another alternative, one that this President is loathe to acknowledge 
but evidently more than willing to embrace in the face of the calamity 
that has befallen his own roadmap for Iraq.
  For months, I and others have implored the President to return to the 
United Nations and to seek a greater role for the U.N. in the 
occupation, administration, and reconstruction of Iraq. Hear me. Hear 
me. Long before the war, we begged--didn't we? Yes--we begged the 
President to seek the support of the United Nations Security Council 
before invading Iraq. Were our pleas heeded? No. Our pleas fell upon 
deaf ears.
  This administration was confident that it could go it alone. And it 
said so, did it not? Yes. It said: If you don't do it, we will. This 
administration was confident it could go it alone with only a 
threadbare coalition of the willing to paper over its unilateral 
action. How hollow that confidence now rings. In the face of disaster, 
in the face of mounting doubts among members of the coalition, the 
President has now been forced to seek shelter--Help me, Cassius, or I 
sink--under the wings of the United Nations. The Iraqis have rejected 
every plan for transition of power put forward by the President's 
Coalition Provisional Authority. Our only hope left is that they will 
embrace a plan put forward by the United Nations, the very body the 
United States spurned when the President chose to invade Iraq without 
the support of the U.N. Security Council. Irony scarcely begins to 
describe the current state of affairs.
  The fact is, while espousing hard-line rhetoric and ironclad resolve, 
this administration has ducked and bobbed and weaved at every 
opportunity. In the administration's ever-shifting explanation for the 
war in Iraq, the face of our enemy has ricocheted over the past 12 
months from Saddam Hussein and his Republican Guard to disgruntled 
Baathist dead-enders to foreign terrorists taking advantage of the 
unrest in Iraq to pursue their agenda of jihad to today's vague 
assortment of thugs and fanatics opposed to democracy for Iraq.
  We hear the refrain. We hear the refrain: Stay the course. Stay the 
course.

[[Page 7205]]

Stay the course. Well, exactly what course is it we are supposed to be 
staying in Iraq? Is it to furnish more boys as cannon fodder? What is 
meant by stay the course? Is it to furnish more of our young men and 
women as cannon fodder to die in the streets of Iraq? Is that what is 
meant when we hear the refrain: We shall stay the course, we must stay 
the course?
  The President failed to explain what that is supposed to mean to the 
American people at his press conference. How did we get from protecting 
the United States from the threat of weapons of mass destruction to the 
vague notion of fighting extremists opposed to democracy in Iraq? The 
President failed to explain that fact as well. Where were those 
extremists before the invasion? Why is it that they are emerging in 
force only now, a full year after the fall of Baghdad? Could it be that 
this administration has created America's own worst nightmare because 
of its colossal arrogance, its clumsy mistakes, and its painful 
misjudgments on virtually every aspect of the war in Iraq?
  These are not the questions of an unpatriotic or reckless opposition. 
Where are the voices today in this Senate? It is not unpatriotic to ask 
questions. It is not unpatriotic to voice opposition to the policies of 
this administration. These are not questions intended to demoralize 
America or to hearten our enemies. Rather, these are the questions that 
a free and open society--the kind of society that the President 
envisions for Iraq--is expected to pose of its leaders. These are the 
kind of questions that a democratic nation's leader is beholden to 
answer. Dogmatic admonitions and grandiose allusions will not suffice. 
In a democratic society, the people demand and the people deserve the 
simple and unvarnished truth. So do the people's representatives in 
Government. They, too, demand, they are entitled to, and they deserve 
the simple and unvarnished truth. Congress also demands and deserves 
the simple and unvarnished truth from the executive branch.
  This is a coequal branch of Government, Mr. Bush. As a coequal branch 
of Government, as the body in which the Constitution vests the power of 
the purse, Congress requires the truth from the President, from the 
executive branch, from the Pentagon, from the Defense Department, from 
the State Department, from the White House. This is what makes recent 
allegations in Bob Woodward's new book regarding the redirection of 
appropriated funds into clandestine appropriations for the war on Iraq 
so disturbing, and the American people ought to be disturbed. The 
American people ought to ask questions, and their representatives in 
this body ought to ask questions. If the President, as alleged in this 
book, made the decision to wage war against Iraq and secretly spent 
appropriated funds to prepare for that war without prior consultation 
with Congress, then the letter of the law, the intent of the law, the 
spirit of the law, and the constitutional power of the purse have been 
subverted This would be not only a very grave breach of trust on the 
part of the executive branch, on the part of the administration, but 
also a very grave abuse of power.
  Mr. President, I hope with all my heart that Iraq will emerge from 
the current chaos to become a free and democratic nation. I hope with 
all my heart that the sacrifices that America's military forces have 
endured in Iraq will be validated by reality, and not justified merely 
on the basis of wishful thinking. The path forward is not yet clear, 
but this I know: President Bush led America into a preemptive war that 
was neither dictated by circumstances nor driven by events. President 
Bush led America into a war of choice, a war that might well have been 
avoided with patience and prudence. Would that we could read that 
``April is the cruelest month'' without reflecting on the cruel and 
terrible toll that the war on Iraq has taken on America's men and women 
in uniform in Iraq during this bloody and sorrowful month of April.
  It is said in the King James version of the Holy Bible that of those 
to whom much is given, much is required. Mr. President, much is 
required of this administration and this President with regard to Iraq. 
The American people expect answers, the American people expect a 
judicious strategy, and the American people expect a well-thought-out 
military and diplomatic campaign. On all fronts, the American people 
have been let down. A President who wages war and manages the aftermath 
of war by the seat of his pants is not what the American people either 
expect or deserve. I fear that is what they are seeing in Iraq.
  This President, having blundered into this war in Iraq, does not have 
much time left to get the stabilization of Iraq right. We have spent 
our blood and treasure in Iraq, and it is now time--past time--to 
aggressively explore ways in which the burden on Americans can be 
mitigated. It is time to abandon the go-it-alone attitude, the go-it-
alone, cocky, arrogant attitude established by this President.
  It is time--long past time--for the President to admit to mistakes 
made, to forsake his divisive either/or rhetoric, and to seek a way out 
of the deepening morass of Iraq with the full partnership of the United 
Nations, the region, and the international community.
  President Bush needs to drop all pretensions that the war in Iraq and 
the battle for stability are going according to plan. Only by accepting 
the fact that a bold new direction is needed to untangle the mess in 
Iraq can this President extricate the United States from what is fast 
becoming a quagmire. It is time for the President to set aside his 
pride and to convene an international summit on the future of Iraq, 
composed of representatives of the Iraqi people, their Arab neighbors, 
NATO, and the United Nations. Then and only then will the Iraqi people 
be in a position to chart their own future with the help of the 
international community. Then and only then will the United States be 
able to relinquish ownership of the tiger that it now holds by the 
tail.
  America must alter its course in Iraq to deal with the volatile 
vacuum left by the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. America must be 
prepared to fight terrorism wherever it rears its ugly head and not be 
lulled into the false belief that attacking terrorists overseas will 
stop them from attacking America on its homefront. Above all, Americans 
must never be cowed into believing that questions are somehow 
``unpatriotic'' or that Presidents, even wartime Presidents, are ever 
above answering them. And finally, Americans must remember that in this 
country there are no kings.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about S. 2290, the 
pending bill on asbestos legislation before the Senate. Like many of my 
colleagues before me, I also want to express great frustration because 
it does not seem as though we are moving the ball down the field on 
something that I think a lot of us believe is a very important issue. 
It is one that demands to be addressed and looks for a legislative 
solution that we are all trying to find.
  Among the many issues that I hear about from my constituents, this is 
one that very frequently shows up in our discussions and at townhall 
meetings. A lot of people have suffered devastating injuries after 
exposure to asbestos. Families have lost loved ones. It is a real deal 
in people's lives.
  I have heard from companies, CEOs, and people who are trying to 
manage their company's liabilities, and it is a real problem. Insurance 
companies, many of which are headquartered in my State, have spoken 
about this issue and my old industry, the financial industry, is 
concerned about the penalties and its implications in the capital 
markets that are imposing very severe costs on defending companies and 
insurers because of the crisis. This is something that we ought to 
address.

[[Page 7206]]

  Unfortunately, our current system is not working, and that is a 
reality for those who need it. It is not working for the defendant 
companies that want certainty for their business planning. It is not 
working for insurance companies that face accelerating claims, and it 
is certainly not working for asbestos victims. We need to make sure 
those who are truly injured receive the compensation they deserve in a 
timely fashion and on a basis that is fair to all involved. It needs to 
be done. We need to address it.
  Decades of asbestos use and a coverup of its health effects have 
resulted in a massive occupational and environmental health crisis. By 
the way, we are still having exposure developed by a lot of the imports 
that we are now receiving into our Nation, where some of those who 
manufacture abroad are not dealing with the issues we have begun to 
deal with. It is a real killer, a silent killer, physically but also 
emotionally debilitating to many people across America.
  Medical costs associated with asbestos-related diseases are 
astronomical. They are off the charts. It is not a matter of millions. 
It is billions and it is an annual affair and it cries out to be 
addressed.
  Hundreds of thousands of workers and their family members have 
suffered and died from asbestos-related cancer and lung diseases. I 
think the number is about 10,000 die each year. Approximately 24 
million have been exposed. In my home State of New Jersey, which is an 
old manufacturing State, 2,700 people have been killed by asbestos 
since 1979, and two of our counties in New Jersey are in the top 10 in 
the Nation in those asbestos-related deaths. That is Camden and 
Somerset Counties. So this is a real deal for us. We would like to see 
this addressed.
  We cannot ignore the tragedy of these asbestos deaths and injuries. 
We can and we should be able to come up with a workable solution. As I 
said, like many of my colleagues, I would like to see a national trust 
fund to compensate victims through a no-fault system, ensuring that 
those who are most injured receive a just award as quickly as possible. 
It should not be going on for 5 or 10 years. I hope we can agree that 
we need to focus on paying those who are truly sick and that we must 
pay those people fairly.
  That is why I was pleased last year when the Judiciary Committee held 
bipartisan hearings on the issue, had bipartisan negotiations, and 
seemed to be making progress towards arriving at a fair and balanced 
solution. Unfortunately, last year the Judiciary Committee reported out 
a bill that did not have broad bipartisan support and was not, in my 
view at least, balanced in its approach to the issue.
  The bill before us has gotten worse. Good amendments that were added 
in committee have been dropped, and the size of the fund, frankly, is 
at the low end of anyone's expectations of what is appropriate.
  I will take a few moments to discuss what I see are some of the most 
glaring flaws in the bill that we are debating and reasons, at least 
right now as it stands, I cannot support it. First, the size of the 
fund is quite simply out of touch with reality. I hear estimates of 
anywhere from $100 billion to $300 billion as the cost of settlement 
that people would expect for the probability of the associated problems 
with asbestos, and we have picked the low end of that number as the 
basis on which we are going to deal with it. The bill that was reported 
out of committee would have had $153 billion, and we have come up with 
$109 billion, absolutely at the very low end of any of the national 
estimates, any of the academic estimates of objective outside 
observers. We are starting at the wrong place in the negotiation.
  In addition to the anemic overall funding, the bill has other 
weaknesses. For example, the Hatch substitute deprives victims of 
exposure adequate compensation. Awards just remain far too low for many 
victims with serious diseases that are an outgrowth of this. Funding 
would not pay for victims' medical bills, let alone compensate their 
families for any type of hardships.
  To give an example, a worker with 15 years of asbestos exposure and 
lung cancer would be guaranteed only $25,000 in compensation. I do not 
see how that relates to the risk of life that individuals would be 
taking in that context.
  In another example, victims with asbestos who lose 20 to 40 percent 
of breathing capacity or are disabled from work will receive only 
$85,000 for lost wages and medical costs. These numbers do not fit the 
circumstance. Now, $25,000 barely gets a family of four above the 
poverty line, and we are talking about $25,000 and $85,000 in lost 
wages and medical costs that accrue to those things. We are not in the 
right ballpark.
  The pending bill also guts a Biden amendment adopted in the committee 
with strong bipartisan support to protect victims' rights in the event 
of fund insolvency. It would allow that once the fund was insolvent, if 
that $109 billion was not enough, then bring claims back into State 
court. That was overwhelmingly supported in committee.
  Given the low level of funding in this bill, insolvency obviously is 
a problem. I believe it is unfair to ask the victims to give up their 
rights to enter into a fund without knowing that fund would have 
sufficient assets to cover the claims, and where do they go in those 
circumstances. So it is another major problem.
  The pending bill would also treat victims with pending claims 
unfairly. This one is really hard to swallow. It would wipe out the 
claims of more than 300,000 people who have claims pending in the 
current system, even those who have already received jury awards.
  We are looking back into history and changing history. I don't 
understand why, when we have had a judicial process, we have come to a 
conclusion or we are even in the process of that, we want to stop, 
start all over and move people into another system. It does not strike 
me as consistent with a commonsense sense of fairness. If you have an 
award, it ought to go through.
  In addition, the bill significantly weakens key provisions that would 
protect victims without an effective remedy during the transition to a 
new system. The bill also lacks transparency with regard to companies 
and insurers and how they are going to contribute to the fund and in 
what amounts, which makes it difficult to determine whether companies 
are paying their fair share.
  By the way, there is a lot of hooting and hollering among the 
insurance companies. A lot of them oppose this because they don't know 
what their deal will be. There is no certainty here, either for the 
victims or for a lot of the people who are going to participate here in 
funding this trust fund. That doesn't make sense and I think it is a 
real problem that also needs to be addressed. We need to amend it.
  It also contains a windfall for certain companies. While we are 
taking it away from some folks, we are certainly giving it to others. 
It contains this windfall with regard to Halliburton, which has an 
estimated $4.8 billion in asbestos liability, but would only have to 
pay $1.2 billion under the Hatch-Frist bill. Why them? Why are they 
getting such a break, particularly after a judgment has already gone 
through? It is sort of the reciprocal or the reverse of what we already 
were talking about with a lot of individuals. They are going to get 
slammed and somebody here is going to get the advantage. They are going 
to apply it in a way that is very uneven and lacking in balance. That 
should be addressed.
  This is not a fair and balanced approach to this problem. It is not 
fair to the injured victims or the families of those who died, and it 
is not fair to companies that want relief from the growing problem, and 
it doesn't provide for the certainty and planning I think corporate 
America is looking for.
  Let me take a moment to discuss what I think is also a misleading 
claim by supporters of the bill. This one is actually hard to 
understand, how this gets any circulation at all. Unfortunately, this 
administration, as a lot of us have talked about on other occasions, 
has been weak in the record of creating jobs. I don't have to go 
through the litany of 2 million lost jobs, 8.4 million unemployed 
Americans, 2.6 million private sector jobs

[[Page 7207]]

lost. That was the only period of time, actually, since the Depression 
an administration has more than likely overseen a period of decline in 
job growth in the country. But somehow we have decided this is a jobs 
bill; somehow this is going to create jobs.
  There are those who will argue many of the asbestos companies have 
been forced into bankruptcy and that cost has seriously damaged the 
American economy, particularly as it relates to jobs. The facts don't 
meet the description. This is sometimes a fact-free arena. We make 
assertions and do not necessarily follow through. But if anybody does 
any serious analysis of what goes on in these companies that have gone 
through these reorganizations under chapter 11 protection, they will 
know they have been able to use this device as a means to manage 
through their obligations and they are able to pay out some of their 
responsibilities but it has kept their companies going. The truth is, 
they have not gone out of business, many of them--most of them. Some 
are doing better than ever.
  Let's take Halliburton, since I mentioned it once before. Halliburton 
has agreed to compensate the innocent victims and companies poisoned 
with a settlement of more than $4 billion. That is, of course, unless 
we pass this legislation, then only $1.2 billion. In order to pursue 
this settlement Halliburton has agreed to put two of its companies into 
chapter 11 temporarily until a court approves a trust arrangement to 
compensate asbestos victims.
  Meanwhile, Halliburton on its own Web site is telling its customers 
that it:

     . . . will continue in business and will continue to provide 
     all the excellent services our customers expect from us. In 
     other words, outside the asbestos and silica settlement, it 
     will be business as usual.

  In what kind of shape are these companies that have chosen chapter 11 
reorganization? The answer can be found in a new analysis conducted by 
Professor George Benston of Emory of the seven largest asbestos 
companies that sought chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization protection 
in 2000 and 2001. This is a real study by someone trying to bring an 
objective perspective. Professor Benston studied the asbestos companies 
and compared them to companies in their business that did not declare 
bankruptcy reorganization in order to determine how successful their 
operations would be under the supervision of the bankruptcy court. He 
concluded:

       On the whole, they essentially have increased or stabilized 
     their sales, assets, employment, and profitability, and have 
     projected increases. It is fair to say they are viable and 
     likely to be increasingly successful companies that should 
     generate funds to exit bankruptcy significantly stronger than 
     when they went in.

  We are doing this because this is a jobs bill, when it is fair to say 
they have increased or stabilized their sales, assets, employment, and 
profitability, and have projected increases. Somehow or another, 
objective evidence doesn't seem to match with the claims. This is 
hardly a jobs bill. The argument falls apart on the surface of it, as 
far as I can tell.
  So while I am sympathetic to the corporations that generally want to 
fulfill their obligations with respect to asbestos victims and 
certainly I have an appreciation for their desire for serious financial 
planning, if this asbestos bill is the best we can do, the 
administration can do, the leadership--Senator Frist and Senator 
Hatch--can do to create jobs in our country and address this problem, 
then I think we have a lot higher objectives for which we need to set 
our standards.
  That is why I think we ought to have a full debate. We ought to have 
a lot of votes on amendments that will actually address a number of 
these problems we talked about. I hope we can get back to those 
bipartisan negotiations, away from this floor, where we can talk about 
the size of the trust fund, we can talk about some of this ex post 
facto analysis about who is benefiting and who is not; where we can 
make sure the general awards to victims are actually higher and there 
is some serious backstop if the fund doesn't actually have the 
resources to be able to deal with these issues.
  We sure the heck ought to stop talking about this in a context that 
makes no sense in economic reality, that this is a jobs bill. I go back 
to this. This is one of those things I think Americans across the board 
want to see Congress act on. This is not something that has a 
Republican or Democratic label. We want to find a resolution. I want to 
find a resolution. We have to do that in a fair and balanced manner. I 
thought the Judiciary Committee made a lot of progress on this on the 
bill they reported out. That is not what we are working on.
  I don't understand why we don't turn the clock back just a little bit 
and get on with some of the hard work that was done when we came up 
with some of these bipartisan approaches to deal with this very thorny 
issue. On the basis of offering a helping hand to many victims and 
their families, for companies that need to have stability in their 
balance sheet and the ability to make plans for the future, to reduce 
the caseload we have in our court system, there are a lot of reasons we 
ought to be moving in this area. We are not pulling together, sitting 
down and negotiating a transaction formulation of legislation that 
makes sense for everybody.
  Everyone is going to have to give a little bit, but this is something 
that could be done if we wanted to go to work to make it happen. The 
will is there. Certainly the demand is there. I think there is a lot of 
ground for positive, constructive dialog.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity 
to speak today regarding the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution 
Act. As debate draws to a close on the motion to proceed to 
consideration of this bill, I take a few minutes to express my 
appreciation to those who have worked so hard over the past several 
years to find a solution to what has become an enormous--and continues 
to grow every day--problem. I offer my views as to how this process can 
be revived and lead to a satisfactory resolution yet this year.
  First, a bit of history will be helpful. Soon after I arrived in the 
Senate in 2001, I approached then-Chairman Leahy of the Judiciary 
Committee and indicated to him that I thought legislation was necessary 
to come up with a solution to compensate asbestos victims; if we worked 
on it in an appropriate fashion, it could be passed. I knew the process 
would be long and difficult, but I thought it was worth pursuing. If we 
did not begin, we would never conclude that solution. Senator Leahy 
very graciously agreed and held hearings to explore the feasibility of 
this approach.
  Following the elections of 2002, Chairman Hatch continued those 
efforts and began formulating a legislative proposal. I agreed to 
cosponsor that legislation, not because I supported everything in the 
bill, but because I believed it would provide an incentive for those 
with a major stake in the resolution of this issue to begin discussions 
aimed at solutions.
  That strategy worked. Discussions began, the major issues were 
framed, the Judiciary Committee held 4 long days of markup, and a bill 
was reported out. However, there were problems with the bill. Still, 
the process was moving forward. Sometimes it felt like one step 
forward, two steps backward. But stakeholders continued to negotiate.
  Senator Specter, to his credit, brought the parties together and 
worked on the array of issues other than values and dollar amounts. 
That process was also extremely helpful in bringing us to the point 
where we are today.
  The majority leader has now incorporated a number of the elements of 
the Specter-Judge Becker negotiations into the bill before the Senate. 
Unfortunately, the bill before the Senate is

[[Page 7208]]

not complete. It still lacks a consensus among the major stakeholders. 
That is why I have chosen not to cosponsor this substitute amendment 
when I was asked to do so. It simply, in my judgment, is not ready. 
Several major issues have not been resolved. I don't believe this is a 
bill that can be written on the floor of the Senate.
  I do believe a solution can still be achieved yet this year if the 
leaders will make a renewed commitment to continue the process. With a 
very limited time agreement, no more than 2 or 3 weeks at the most, and 
with active involvement by leadership, I believe we can reach a 
solution. It may inevitably be a solution that is least objectionable, 
but at the very least we can arrive at a solution that almost every 
stakeholder can accept.
  As a matter of information, a constituent of mine by the name of 
Warren Buffett--some of you may have heard of him--expressed to me his 
view that there probably is not anything more important that the 
Congress can do for the economy than to resolve this issue which 
continues to overhang our economy. The economic impact is important.
  Of course, the most compelling reason to find a solution is not 
simply to provide certainty to the economy; it is, in fact, to provide 
relief to the many victims of the debilitating and deadly illnesses 
caused by asbestos.
  I know my colleagues understand the scope of the problem before the 
Senate. The suffering of the victims and their families has been 
brought home to each of us. We all have many examples of those 
unfortunate victims and their situations. But I would like to 
personalize it for my colleagues.
  When I served as Governor, I had the pleasure of appointing an Omaha 
attorney by the name of Mike Amdor to the Nebraska District Court 
bench. Mike Amdor was a very good friend. I had known him and his 
family for years. His father had gone to law school with my late 
father-in-law. I knew his mother when she was alive and worked with his 
father in the insurance business.
  I appointed him to the Nebraska District Court bench. He was a bright 
and vibrant lawyer, and he came to be a trusted and respected jurist. 
But more important, he was a consummate family man, a devoted husband, 
a father of five young children.
  In late 1999, he began to experience serious health problems and was 
soon diagnosed with mesothelioma. Despite a courageous and painful 
fight with the disease--and it looked at times as though he might be 
able to beat the odds and survive--he, unfortunately, passed away on 
November 28, 2002. Mike had been exposed to asbestos as a young man 
working his way through college and law school. We all know that 
virtually the only cause of mesothelioma is exposure to asbestos.
  Mike's family pursued legal action against those responsible for his 
exposure and obtained a series of settlements totaling $655,000. 
However, to date, his widow and five children have realized a total of 
$56,463.76 on those judgments. Fifty-six thousand dollars and change: 
less than 10 cents on the dollar because the defendants were bankrupt. 
Under the terms of the trust fund legislation, which we are debating 
and working to achieve, his widow and family could receive $1 million.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the letter which I received yesterday from Judge Mike Amdor's widow.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     Omaha, NE

                                                   April 20, 2004.
     Re Mike Amdor and the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution 
         Act of 2003, The FAIR Act, (S. 1125) Renumbered S. 2290.

     Senator Ben Nelson,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nelson: I am writing to thank you for 
     sponsoring the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 
     2003. Your continued support of this legislation is very 
     important. As the spouse of a victim of asbestos I have a 
     personal interest in the success of this bill. There are many 
     others in the same situation and our numbers will continue to 
     grow because the onset of many of the effects of asbestos 
     exposure are not seen for many years.
       You are familiar with the illness and death of my husband, 
     Michael Amdor. Please allow me to give you a short history of 
     his exposure to asbestos and the subsequent deadly illness he 
     suffered.
       After finishing high school Mike worked at Physician's 
     Mutual Insurance during the summer of 1965. He worked in the 
     mailroom while an elevator was being installed through the 
     existing walls of the building. At this time there were no 
     existing requirements to contain the asbestos being disturbed 
     or removed during renovation of existing buildings. In 1971 
     Mike worked for Northwestern Bell, now Qwest, in downtown 
     Omaha, NE. He was a computer operator and his job did not 
     involve using asbestos products. However, the building was 
     being remodeled during the time he was employed there. The 
     crews doing the remodeling during the daytime wore some 
     protective equipment because of the known presence of 
     asbestos in the area being remodeled. The overnight computer 
     staff were neither warned of the asbestos nor given any 
     protection from the particles that were in the air and on the 
     surfaces of the tables in their lunchroom.
       Fast forward to the fall of 1999. Mike and I had been 
     married almost 30 years. We were raising five children, Erin, 
     then 20, Diane, 16, Sara, 15, John, 12, and Bennett 10. Mike 
     was a District Court Judge, and deeply honored that you had 
     seen fit to appoint him while you were Governor. As the 
     holidays began, Mike noticed a sudden weight gain and 
     enlargement of his abdomen. After Christmas it became so 
     uncomfortable that he went to see our family doctor on 
     December 30, 1999. The doctor was very alarmed by Mike's 
     appearance and arranged for him to be admitted to Immanuel 
     Hospital the next day.
       Following 3 weeks of tests by several doctors, we received 
     the diagnosis of Perotoneal Mesothelioma. The prognosis was 
     devastating, a 50 percent chance of living another 6 months 
     and 18 months as the most optimistic life expectancy. Mike 
     began chemotherapy at the University of Nebraska Medical 
     Center and we searched for information on this disease. 
     Virtually all of the information we could find indicated that 
     the only cause of Mesothelioma is the exposure to asbestos 
     and that the time between exposure and illness could be 30 
     years or longer.
       After 6 months of chemotherapy, Mike was stable and we 
     dared to hope that he would make a complete recovery despite 
     the dire descriptions we were able to find about this 
     disease. In June of 2001 the tumors began to grow and Mike 
     again needed to undergo chemotherapy. This time he did not 
     respond to the treatments. We sought other options and Mike 
     entered a Clinical Trial at the National Cancer Institute 
     (NCI) located in Bethesda MD. He underwent 12 hours of 
     surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy in December of 2001. 
     After a week in intensive care he began to improve. We were 
     able to return to Omaha on December 31, 2001. He had been 
     fighting this disease for 2 years and once again we hoped for 
     a reprieve from the death sentence he had been given.
       Sadly that was not to be. In August of 2002 the disease 
     again began to progress. Mike underwent weekly procedures to 
     drain the fluid accumulating in his abdomen and then his 
     lungs. Additional attempts with chemotherapy were 
     unsuccessful. Even after he needed supplemental oxygen to 
     assist his breathing he continued to work at the Court House 
     nearly every day.
       Mike died on November 28, 2002. Nothing will make up for 
     the loss of his presence in our lives. He had so many things 
     left undone. Our children had to see the suffering and death 
     of the most important man in their lives. Only Erin is 
     through school and living on her own. Diane is a sophomore at 
     Duquesne University. Sarah is a freshman at Creighton 
     University. John and Bennett are students at Creighton Prep. 
     I have lost the love of my life. Few people are lucky enough 
     to know the joy we found in each other. And few can 
     understand the loss of such a special person. One of the 
     first things I ever heard Mike say was my name. His final 
     word, spoken with his final breath, was my name.
       Mike worked at the Court House until 2 days before his 
     death. He knew he was very close to the end of his time on 
     earth. He continued to provide justice to others even though 
     he knew there would be no justice for him in this world. The 
     Congress alone now has the ability to provide some measure of 
     justice to the victims of asbestos by providing equitable 
     financial settlements to them and their families.
       I trust you will also support efforts to prevent future 
     exposure to asbestos by supporting the passage of legislation 
     to prohibit the use of this deadly material anywhere in the 
     United States. These measures are needed to insure that no 
     new victims are exposed to the cause of such deadly diseases.
       As he continued to work and receive treatment, Mike 
     contacted an attorney familiar with asbestos cases. Michael 
     J. Lehan represented Mike and now myself in efforts to seek 
     some compensation for his illness and death resulting from 
     asbestos exposure.
       Mr. Lehan filed a Workers Compensation claim with Qwest and 
     Physician's Mutual Insurance Company because Mike believed he 
     had been exposed at both work sites. Before a formal hearing 
     could be held, Qwest accepted his claim and began paying 
     Mike's medical bills. After his death I began receiving a 
     death benefit under this claim.

[[Page 7209]]

       In addition to the Workers Compensation claim, Mr. Lehan 
     filed several lawsuits against companies that manufactured or 
     provided asbestos materials that Mike thought he might have 
     been exposed to. As a result of these suits, we received 
     several settlements, which were subject to attorney's fees 
     and expenses. The first Settlement was from Owens-Illinois 
     Inc., for $20,000.00. We received $11,633.34. In March of 
     2001 Celotex Corporation offered a settlement of $8,500.00. 
     We received $4,266.00. Eagle Picher Industries Trust offered 
     a settlement of $6,500.00. This company has filed bankruptcy 
     and there was very little money for asbestos claimants. After 
     attorney fees and expenses we received $3,333.33. Another 
     company in bankruptcy, H.K. Porter made a settlement of 
     $20,000.00. Because of the limited assets of the trust the 
     payment value was $920.00, and we received $563.00.
       In March of 2002 AcandS, Inc. made a settlement offer of 
     $600,000. However, they have filed for bankruptcy and they 
     are unlikely to pay anymore than the $58,584.00 first payment 
     they made before filing. We received $36,628.09 from this 
     settlement. Mr. Lehan has told me that it is unlikely that 
     much more will be paid of this settlement.
       The FAIR Act with the proposed amendments offered after S. 
     1125 was reported out of Committee last July would assure 
     compensation for Mesothelioma victims such as Mike and at 
     this time offers the only hope for any meaningful 
     compensation for the loss we have suffered.
       Many of the companies directly responsible for the asbestos 
     exposure of Mike and millions of others have either filed for 
     bankruptcy or found other ways to shelter themselves from 
     responsibility to their victims. The FAIR Act would provide 
     compensation for many families and avoid the abuse that 
     sometimes takes place in our current tort system. Exposure to 
     asbestos in and of itself will not always result in illness. 
     When it does there should be resources available to the 
     victims and their families.
       Thank you for taking the time to read this lengthy letter. 
     Mike was such a just man and had great faith in our systems 
     of law. No amount of monetary compensation can replace the 
     loss of Mike and the many thousands of other Mesothelioma 
     victims, he believed that there would be a way for the system 
     to insure that his family and others would at least have some 
     measure of financial security provided by those most 
     responsible for the continued use of asbestos.
       Please let me know if there is any way that I could assist 
     you in seeing this important legislation enacted into law.
           Gratefully,
                                                Cathleen C. Amdor.

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, it is imperative we get this 
resolved. This legislation, unfortunately, is not complete. But it 
could be completed, and completed relatively quickly, with the right 
approach. And the right approach is to put the stakeholders in a room, 
with guidance from the leadership on both sides of the aisle, with a 
firm deadline, and with a firm charge to come to a resolution. It can 
be done, and, moreover, it should be done.
  The judge's case is a tragedy, but it does not stand alone, 
unfortunately. There are hundreds, yet thousands, of cases similar to 
Mike and Cathy Amdor's. There will be future victims who will not 
receive compensation because there will not be anybody left to collect 
from. I am committed to the trust fund approach because I believe it 
represents the best opportunity for those who are sick, and those who 
will become sick, to obtain reasonable compensation for their 
suffering. I remain optimistic that it can be done if we demonstrate 
the resolve, the determination, to put politics aside and get it done.
  We are now on the threshold of floor action on the bill. I urge the 
leadership to renew their commitment to a process which I and others on 
both sides of the aisle believe can still work. Fair treatment for 
thousands of asbestos victims is at stake, and we have come too far to 
quit now. We must make the final push to reach consensus.
  Again, I commend the hundreds of people who have spent thousands of 
hours working towards a solution. Those who have struggled with this 
issue have worked in good faith, determined to find the mechanism to 
compensate those victims and those who will in the future fall victim 
to asbestos. I still believe we can do this, and I know with absolute 
certainty, though, that we must.
  Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to address the body 
today. I hope my colleagues will join together in asking our leaders to 
work together to come up with a solution that will meet the needs and 
will meet the opportunities that this legislation represents. But I 
think it has to be other legislation. This legislation is not yet ready 
to be passed. But with a very brief period of intense negotiation and 
working, with the support of the leaders, I do believe it can be. In 
the final analysis, it must be.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the motion to 
invoke cloture on the asbestos bill. I say to my good friend from 
Nebraska, with whom I agree on so many issues, and work so very closely 
with, I think this bill is ready because it is a bill we have been 
negotiating for months and months and months, and a bill on which great 
compromises have been made on both sides of the issue. I do think it is 
time we invoke cloture, that we bring this bill to the floor, and that 
it be open for whatever amendments may be necessary by those who 
disagree with it, but let's have a vote on it.
  Asbestos-related bankruptcies have inflicted a staggering toll on the 
American workforce. Companies that have declared bankruptcy because of 
asbestos-related litigation employed more than 200,000 workers before 
their bankruptcies. So far, asbestos-related bankruptcies have led to 
the direct loss of as many as 60,000 jobs, while each displaced worker 
will lose an average of $25,000 to $50,000 in wages over his or her 
career. For example, when Federal Mogul declared bankruptcy in 2001, 
employees reportedly lost more than $800 million in their 401(k) plans.
  The AFL-CIO has testified before Congress that:

       Uncertainty for workers and their families is growing as 
     they lose health insurance and see their companies file for 
     bankruptcy protection.

  There is no question that the escalating claims and costs are a 
threat to workers' jobs and retirement savings. The AFL-CIO further 
testified that ``the tort system is damaging business far more than it 
is compensating victims'' when it comes to asbestos-related cases.
  One economic study found that, considering the multiplying effect of 
private investment, failure to enact asbestos legislation could reduce 
economic growth by $2.4 billion per year, costing more than 30,000 jobs 
annually. Extended over a 27-year timeframe--which is the timeframe of 
this bill--this would translate into the loss of more than 800,000 jobs 
and $64 billion in economic growth. Another study concluded that 
423,000 new jobs will not be created due to asbestos litigation, and 
$33 billion in capital investment will not now be made, unless we bring 
this bill to the floor and pass this asbestos litigation bill.
  Asbestos-related bankruptcies threaten American workers' jobs, 
incomes, job-related benefits, and retirement savings. To date, 
approximately 70 or more companies--35 since the year 2000--have been 
driven into bankruptcy as a result of asbestos litigation. Forty-seven 
States have had at least one asbestos-related bankruptcy.
  How does this translate into lost jobs? As I have already said, these 
bankruptcies have led to the direct loss of at least 60,000 jobs. Many 
of the affected companies are highly unionized. If this direct impact 
is not bad enough, we have plenty of additional collateral damage from 
these lost jobs. It is estimated that for every 10 jobs lost as a 
direct result of an asbestos-related bankruptcy, an additional 8 jobs 
are lost. Each worker who has lost a job as a result of bankruptcy will 
lose an estimated $25,000 to $50,000 in wages because of periods of 
unemployment and/or lower wages in subsequent employment. Moreover, 
each worker loses, on average, at least 25 percent of the value of 
their 401(k) retirement account as a result of their company's 
bankruptcy.
  While we are on the subject of retirement savings, asbestos-related 
bankruptcies have an adverse impact on the retirement savings of 
millions of Americans. We have already seen how badly these 
bankruptcies impact the retirement savings of individual investors. We 
have seen the devastation to employees of bankrupt companies

[[Page 7210]]

whose 401(k) retirement accounts hold their employers' stock. And we 
have seen the damage to those whose pension funds have invested in 
companies driven into bankruptcy as a result of asbestos-related cases.
  All one has to do is look at a couple of examples to get a sense of 
the dramatic negative impact that asbestos-related bankruptcies have 
had and will continue to have on retirement savings.
  Owens Corning stock, 14 percent of which was owned by its employees 
in their 401(k) accounts, lost 96 percent of its value, dropping from 
$1.8 billion to $75 million in the 2 years before its bankruptcy filing 
in October of 2000.
  Then there is the example of Federal Mogul. At the time of Federal 
Mogul's bankruptcy in October 2001, 22,000 of its employees owned 16 
percent of the company's stock, stock that lost 99 percent of its value 
or more than $70 million. Between January 1999 and the time of its 
bankruptcy, Federal Mogul's market capitalization dropped from $4 
billion to only $49 million. And by the way, Federal Mogul never, ever 
produced asbestos. It simply acquired a company with asbestos 
liability. Federal Mogul's stock, which once traded for more than $70 a 
share, now sells for pennies. Company retirees who once had secure 
retirement nest eggs must now work minimum wage jobs to survive.
  One Federal Mogul retiree told the Detroit News he managed to salvage 
most of his retirement savings by selling the company's shares before 
the bottom fell out. But unfortunately, his 82-year-old former 
colleague was not as fortunate. Because he held on to his Federal Mogul 
stock, his $1 million retirement plan evaporated to $22,000. As a 
result, this individual now works as a greeter at a Wal-Mart store--a 
very credible job, but he didn't take the job because he wanted to meet 
people. He simply needed to eat.
  The runaway asbestos litigation crisis must be brought to an end. The 
economic data we have seen is troubling because it shows that asbestos 
litigation creates job losses. American workers and retirees cannot 
afford to continue shouldering the weight of Congress's failure to act. 
In fact, we create a class of economic victims by our inaction as 
companies go into bankruptcy and people lose their jobs.
  What I find truly ironic is my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle who have repeatedly stressed the importance of protecting 
American jobs want to block us from considering a bill that squarely 
addresses this very objective. If protecting American jobs is a 
priority, then I strongly urge my Democratic colleagues to rethink 
their position on the Frist-Hatch-Miller asbestos bill or at least vote 
for cloture on Thursday so we can get an up-or-down vote on the merits 
of the bill and in the process we can consider what amendments they 
think might be proper.
  I have not been one to pound on my former colleagues in the trial 
bar. During my 26 years of practicing law, I engaged in plaintiffs' 
work as well as defense work, and they are very noble parts of our 
great legal profession. This bill is not directed at trial lawyers, as 
some have indicated. This bill is directed at two different segments of 
our society and our economy. First of all, at those companies who are 
now struggling because of the asbestos-related cases facing them; they 
are facing bankruptcy if we don't act. We are going to continue to see 
the loss of jobs directly attributable to the failure on the part of 
this body to act. The second class of folks this bill is directed to 
are the victims. Under this bill, the way it is crafted, these victims 
don't have to file a lawsuit. They don't have to go through the long, 
drawn-out discovery process that is a necessary part of every lawsuit. 
They don't have to go through a trial by jury and let a jury of their 
peers determine what their compensation ought to be. They are 
compensated directly and immediately when their injury is brought 
forward.
  The fund we establish is a fund that is going to be here forever and 
ever. We started out with a demand, as the Presiding Officer knows, 
since he is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, from the folks on 
the other side of this bill, that we have a trust fund that has $107 
billion in it. We resisted that early on. We started out with about an 
$86 billion proposal. That $86 billion steadily grew until we not only 
got to $107 billion, we exceeded $107 billion. The trust fund that is 
set forth in this bill before the Senate today is set at $114 billion. 
In addition, we have a 10-percent overage fund that can come into play 
if need be, if that $114 billion is exhausted.
  Beyond that, even if all of that money is exhausted in asbestos-
related claims, anyone who has a true asbestos-related injury can then 
go back to the process that is now in force, the legal system we have. 
So nobody stands to lose in the process. The American worker stands to 
gain. The injured asbestos victims stand to gain by the passage of this 
bill.
  I urge my colleagues on Thursday to join those of us who are strong 
supporters of the legislation and vote to invoke cloture. Let's bring 
the bill to the floor. Let's debate it. And then let's have an up-or-
down vote on the bill. Let's compensate those victims who so badly need 
it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 10 minutes. I would like to speak about my trip to 
Iraq and Afghanistan and welcome home the Bravo Company of Fort Carson, 
CO.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


     Thanking the Men and Women in Uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to share my thoughts with my 
colleagues about the courageous heroism being shown by our men and 
women in uniform deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  On the second day of my visit to Iraq and Afghanistan last month, I 
had the opportunity to meet with a staff sergeant who was a reservist 
from Denver, CO. Before Operation Iraqi Freedom, he had a great family 
life, good-paying job, and much happiness in his life. Yet when 
President Bush ordered our men and women in uniform to prepare and 
eventually rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein, the staff sergeant's unit, the 
324th Tactical PsyOps Company, was mobilized and deployed to Iraq.
  When I met with this brave soldier, his unit had been deployed for 
over a year in Iraq and was expected to spend at least another 3 months 
in the country. Yet to my surprise, this staff sergeant did not 
complain about the lengthy deployment, nor did he complain about 
missing his family or express any worry about losing his job. Instead, 
he spoke of the importance of his mission and how much of a difference 
he and the rest of our forces were making in Iraq. He said the United 
States did the right thing in liberating Iraq from Saddam's tyranny, 
and not a day goes by when at least one Iraqi doesn't thank him 
personally for freeing their country.
  His only request was for me to contact his wife and thank her for 
supporting him, a great sacrifice, over these many months. This was the 
least I could do to repay him for his brave service to our Nation.
  During that conversation, I could not have been more proud of or more 
thankful for our men and women in uniform. Many of these soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, and marines are in their early 20s, and some have 
never been outside the United States. Others have seen combat before 
and are struggling with the long deployment away from their families. 
But every soldier I spoke with made it clear they are dedicated to 
their mission and committed to defeating extremists that seek to return 
that land to a rein of terror.
  I am especially proud of those Coloradans who have confronted our 
enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, the Third Armored Cavalry 
Regiment from Fort Carson, CO returned after being deployed in one of 
the most hostile areas of Iraq for over a year. They fought multiple 
battles with extremists and overcame numerous hardships during the 
course of their assignment. I commend the Third

[[Page 7211]]

ACR for their service and welcome them home.
  I would also like to acknowledge the 10th Special Forces Group, also 
stationed at Fort Carson, for their ongoing contributions to Operation 
Iraqi Freedom. Units from the 10th Special Forces Group continue to 
serve in Iraq and continue to make me and the rest of Colorado very 
proud.
  As we in Colorado celebrate the return of thousands of troops, we 
should not forget those who lost their lives on the battlefield. More 
than 50 men who were either from or stationed in Colorado have made the 
ultimate sacrifice. The families who have lost loved ones deserve 
special honor. Our thoughts and prayers have been with them as we all 
remember the sacrifices their sons and daughters have made for the 
security of our Nation.
  This past weekend, I had the opportunity to welcome home the Bravo 
Company of the 244th Engineering Battalion. Bravo Company is stationed 
in Fort Collins, CO, and the community's response to these men and 
women returning was truly heartening.
  Equally as encouraging were the remarks shared to me from the members 
of the Bravo Company. These professional soldiers want to succeed in 
Iraq, their morale is high, and are proud of the time they devoted to 
the reconstruction of Iraq.
  The Bravo Company's mission in Iraq was to help provide 
infrastructure. This consisted of things such as sanitation facilities, 
electric utilities, water utilities, as well as highways. They also 
helped in other ways with construction of hospitals and schools during 
their deployment. They shared their feelings with me that they felt 
they were really serving a need there. They were proud of their 
opportunity to serve over in Iraq. Obviously, they were glad to return 
home, but many of them were very, very happy about having an 
opportunity to serve the country in a valuable way.
  The point of emphasis shared with me by these soldiers is that it is 
imperative the American people continue to stand firmly behind our 
troops deployed overseas. This is not the time for grandstanding by 
drawing parallels between this military action and the Vietnam War. In 
fact, those distortions run counter to the strong support that the 
American public still has for completing the job in Iraq.
  This is not an issue of people not supporting our Armed Forces, 
because I know that every Member in this body supports our troops, 
regardless of personal beliefs about the rationale for Operation Iraqi 
Freedom. The issue is our support to stay the course for a struggling 
democracy; one that can bring freedom not only to the Iraqis, but 
perhaps to the Middle East. The United States will be defined by our 
response to the terrorists and despots that want to see Iraq return to 
chaos and dictatorship.
  The efforts of units like Colorado's 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment, 
the 10th Special Forces Group, and 244th Engineering Battalion have 
helped to spread freedom and democracy to Iraq after decades of terror. 
A free Iraq is a historic opportunity to change the world.
  By demonstrating our commitment to not only rid Iraq of terrorists 
but also improve the lives of ordinary Iraqis, we show the world that 
America is still the torchbearer for liberty. Our soldiers understand 
the challenges, and they want Americans to help them face the challenge 
and support their efforts.
  Meeting these men and women reminded me of a statement that Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Myers, told the Armed Services 
Committee last year. He said that we would win in Iraq as long as we 
have the continuing will of the American people. I believe that 
Americans still have the will to win, especially the men and women in 
uniform who I have met.
  Mr. President, I thank you for allowing me the time to praise some of 
my brave fellow Coloradans. I will continue to spread the word from the 
soldiers that while even in the gravest of situations, they understand 
the importance of what the United States is trying to accomplish in 
Iraq.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Iraq and Afghanistan

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, there has been some discussion on the 
floor, as there should be, about the very serious situations, 
challenging situations that our Nation and other nations fighting 
against terrorism and for freedom are facing now in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  In the company of the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska, Mr. 
Stevens, and the senior Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Hollings, I 
visited those two countries just four weeks ago. Senator Hollings, 
Senator Stevens, and I had an opportunity to discuss with the heads of 
state and government and our military leaders the situation, and we 
also visited with our troops. We visited Jordan. We visited Iraq. We 
visited Kuwait. We visited, of course, Pakistan. We went into 
Afghanistan, and we came back through Paris where we had, I thought, a 
very interesting and lengthy opportunity to discuss our views with 
President Chirac of France.
  Today I would like to discuss some of these issues that were 
discussed on the floor today. I do so by expressing that the past few 
weeks have been particularly challenging for the citizens of the United 
States of America and, indeed, the citizens of other coalition 
countries fighting bravely with us in those theaters of war, namely, 
Afghanistan and Iraq.
  We are ever mindful the risks our troops face every day and the 
sacrifices made by the families and the communities that support them 
as those who have been removed from power seek to delay their 
inevitable defeat as terrorists lash out against the loss of yet 
another haven, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq, where terrorism has 
been spawned to spread worldwide.
  We mourn every loss of life of these brave men and women in uniform 
and salute those who serve and their families for their bravery, their 
commitment, and their sacrifice. We are at a critical juncture for the 
coalition operations in both of these theaters. The brilliant military 
victories achieved by our forces, together with coalition partners, 
have presented an opportunity to fully defeat violence and terror in 
both Iraq and Afghanistan, nations whose previous rulers had 
perpetrated violence and terror on their own populations, neighbors, 
and, indeed, the world.
  The cycle of violence that has gripped this part of the world must 
end if we are to win the global war on terrorism and to make America 
and the world a safer place. Deviation from our current course will 
only embolden--embolden--those who are intent on causing instability 
and anarchy in these regions of the world.
  We have achieved extraordinary success in a relatively short period 
of time. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein and the threat he posed are gone, and 
now he, I think, to the credit of the Iraqi people, is likely to face a 
court of law and be judged by his own peers for his frightful 
administration over a period of over 30 years in that country and the 
hardships he imposed.
  We must continue, however, to send a strong message of resolve to the 
people of Iraq, to our troops, to our coalition partners, and to the 
rest of the world that we, the United States of America, will stay the 
course and get the job done. As President Bush stated last week:

       Now is the time and Iraq is the place in which the enemies 
     of the civilized world are testing the will of the civilized 
     world. We must not waiver.

  I take great encouragement by listening to that strong statement. I 
have supported the President throughout these operations. As I said, I 
recently visited both of those areas, and I have done it three or four 
other times. It has been an opportunity for me, as chairman of our 
Armed Services Committee,

[[Page 7212]]

to follow these operations very carefully.
  President Bush has set a course that calls for the return of 
political sovereignty to the Iraqis on June 30. It is critical that we 
end our status as an occupying power and give the Iraqis an increased 
stake in what happens in their nation.
  I would like to pause on that point. Yesterday, in the course of our 
series of hearings before the Armed Services Committee, at which time 
we had the benefit of the testimony of the Deputy Secretary of Defense, 
Mr. Wolfowitz, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Under 
Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador Gross, I raised a 
question about the use of the term ``sovereignty.'' I have watched 
carefully as all those in positions of authority have begun to discuss 
what takes place on the 30th of June.
  It has been referred to, and I do not say this out of disrespect but 
just factually, somewhat loosely. People have said we are going to 
convey sovereignty, as I have just read from these remarks. Others say 
it is a conveyance of power to a new Iraqi interim form of government. 
I shall address that later.
  In the hearing yesterday, through questioning by myself and other 
colleagues, it was clearly established that the security of Iraq must 
be maintained by the coalition forces until such time as the Iraqis can 
put in place, whether it is police, a national guard, an army, or a 
combination of all of those forces, a force such that we can turn over 
to them completely the operations that must take place to repel the 
insurgents and otherwise maintain security in that country.
  The question is, Since that must be maintained and the document that 
the Iraqi Governing Council and the Coalition Provisional Authority put 
together--the Transitional Administrative Law--specifically states that 
the Iraqi security forces, as they come along, will be under the 
unified command of a U.S. led multinational force that is authorized by 
UN Security Council Resolution 1511. This resolution goes into some 
detail with regard to how the security will continue to be maintained 
under the auspices of the coalition military leadership. The security 
will still emanate from the President of the United States, the Prime 
Minister of Great Britain, and others who are now directing, through 
their military commanders, the security operation in Iraq. Those forces 
are going to stay.
  If we look at the pure definition of ``sovereignty,'' one must say: 
Wait a minute. The very heart of being a sovereign nation is providing 
security of one's borders, of one's internal situation, and security 
against anyone attacking one's nation. That is the very heart of what I 
believe is sovereignty. But that authority simply does not pass, as I 
said, because of the Transitional Administrative Law and related orders 
enacted by the Iraqi Governing Council and the Coalition Provisional 
Authority, which are the current authority in Iraq, and by United 
Nations Security Council Resolution 1511. So I think as we use the term 
``sovereignty'' with reference to what passes on June 30, we should be 
very careful to say limited sovereignty passes.
  A great deal of responsibility will be transferred to this new 
entity, but the security function is going to remain under the control 
of those I have just described until such time--presumably with the 
combined judgment of the coalition forces and the governing body of 
Iraq--there is a sequential series of governing bodies that take place, 
and until that time we are going to be very active in continuing to 
support a security framework so that government can work.
  Again, I return to the date of June 30. This date was endorsed by the 
U.N. special representative, Mr. Brahimi. Mr. Brahimi and the U.N. are 
playing an important and growing role in this transition of the 
government and will continue to play a critical role, hopefully, in 
helping Iraq on its path to democracy.
  The President's appointment earlier this week of the trusted 
international statesman and current U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John 
Negroponte, as the first U.S. Ambassador to a free and democratic Iraq 
is another important step in the process. I have known Mr. Negroponte 
for a number of years, and I have the highest regard for his 
professional capabilities and his character.
  Continued U.S. commitment to the June 30 transition date is of 
enormous importance to the Iraqi people and to the region, for it will 
be the day Iraq takes its place in the community of free nations and 
the day Iraqis assume responsibility for their future. A free, 
democratic Iraq means defeat for the forces of terrorism and 
instability in Iraq.
  Clearly, the recent surge of violence in Iraq is related to the 
imminent transfer of sovereignty. Those who fear democracy are trying 
to delay its arrival. Those who incite terror realize their days are 
numbered. Opponents of a free and democratic Iraq are desperate and 
will become even more desperate, we all fear--at least I do, and I 
think some others--in the weeks to come until June 30.
  It is my hope, but I certainly do not want to raise expectations, but 
I do have a hope that once the realization, after June 30, settles in 
among the Iraqi people that at long last the first of a series of steps 
to give them total sovereignty is occurring, that 80 to 90 percent of 
Iraqi citizens want this program to succeed and the coalition forces to 
finish their work. Those people will help us in establishing a greater 
degree of security in Iraq.
  We must be prepared, however, for such violence as does continue to 
occur between now and June 30 and afterwards. There is not going to be 
a cliff, an abrupt drop-off. It is likely to continue for a period of 
time, but our coalition forces are resolute to maintain that security.
  Some greater detail was shared with this body by the Deputy Secretary 
of Defense and the Under Secretary of State yesterday during our 
hearing outlining these first steps towards democracy, including: 
formation of an Iraqi Interim Government, with the assistance of the 
U.N., and extensive consultation with the Iraqi people, to accept 
limited sovereignty on June 30, 2004; the organization of elections for 
a representative national assembly and transitional government, to be 
held no later than January 31, 2005; the drafting and ratification of a 
constitution by October 2005; and, elections and formation of a 
constitutional Iraqi government by the end of December 2005. During 
this interim and transitional period, considerable effort will be made 
by U.S. and coalition forces to select, train, equip and mentor the 
various components of the Iraqi security forces, so as to be able to 
assume increasing responsibility for the internal security and external 
defense of Iraq.
  This is a good plan--a realistic plan--that has received the support 
of Ambassador Brahimi, the special representative of the U.N. Secretary 
General, Kofi Annan. This plan, and what additional support may be 
required from the U.N., are the subject of ongoing discussions at the 
U.N.
  Lasting peace and security in Iraq and Afghanistan will be achieved 
when we establish the conditions for democratic, economically viable 
nations. The first steps to democracy have been taken and new 
governments are, or soon will be, preparing to assume the 
responsibilities and challenges of freedom and democracy. These new 
governments will need the continued support and commitment of the 
Congress, the American people, and the international community. Their 
success will stand as a beacon of hope to others in the region and 
around the world, and as a harbinger of defeat for the forces of 
violence and terror.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be 
rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, all of us believe that the current system 
for compensating asbestos victims is not

[[Page 7213]]

working well and that legislation creating a fairer, more effective 
process is needed. However, this bill, S. 2290, is not that 
legislation. In its current form, it does not create a system which 
will fairly and reliably compensate seriously ill victims of asbestos 
exposure.
  This is not a balanced approach to the asbestos problem which comes 
from negotiations between business and labor. The bill reads as if it 
was dictated by the defendants solely for the benefit of the 
defendants. In fact, there have been no serious negotiations for months 
on the central issues fair levels of compensation for seriously ill 
workers, and adequate funding for the asbestos trust to make sure that 
injured workers actually receive what they are promised.
  The only issue on which any progress has been made is the 
administrative structure of the compensation program. Senator Specter 
deserves great credit for convening a series of discussions on this 
topic involving both labor and business. However, as long as the 
compensation values are unreasonably low and the amount of money in the 
trust is grossly inadequate, improving the way in which that money is 
distributed to individual victims cannot make an otherwise bad bill 
acceptable.
  Since the Judiciary Committee voted out a bill in July, the process 
has moved backward, not forward. While I had serious objections to the 
committee-passed bill, the Frist bill is much worse. It reduces the 
funding level of the asbestos trust by more than $40 billion dollars--
$153 billion in the committee bill versus $109 billion in the Frist 
bill. They stripped out the major improvements we made in committee the 
two Feinstein amendments and the Biden amendment. They made a mockery 
of the committee process.
  The bill before us does not reflect what is necessary to compensate 
the enormous number of workers who suffer from asbestos-induced 
disease, it reflects only what the companies who made them sick are 
willing to pay.
  The Republican sponsors of this bill are insisting on compensation 
levels which are far below what these seriously ill workers deserve, 
and less than what they are receiving, on average, under current law. 
These are people whose health has been destroyed and, in many cases, 
whose lives have been substantially shortened, by asbestos induced 
disease. Shortchanging them would be extraordinarily cruel.
  There is also no adequate guarantee in the legislation that 
sufficient funds will be available to fully pay all injured workers who 
are eligible to collect, even at the low levels of compensation in the 
bill. For injured workers and their families, this proposal is clearly 
worse than the current system.
  The real crisis which confronts us is not an asbestos litigation 
crisis, it is an asbestos-induced disease crisis. Asbestos is the most 
lethal substance ever widely used in the workplace. Between 1940 and 
1980, there were 27.5 million workers in this country who were exposed 
to asbestos on the job, and nearly 19 million of them had high levels 
of exposure over long periods of time. That exposure changed many of 
their lives. Each year, more than 10,000 of them die from lung cancer 
and other diseases caused by asbestos. Each year, hundreds of thousands 
of them suffer from lung conditions which make breathing so difficult 
that they cannot engage in the routine activities of daily life. Even 
more have become unemployable due to their medical condition. And, 
because of the long latency period of these diseases, all of them live 
with fear of a premature death due to asbestos-induced disease. These 
are the real victims. They deserve to be the first and foremost focus 
of our concern.
  All too often, the tragedy these workers and their families are 
enduring becomes lost in a complex debate about the economic impact of 
asbestos litigation. We cannot allow that to happen. The litigation did 
not create these costs. Exposure to asbestos created them. They are the 
costs of medical care, the lost wages of incapacitated workers, and the 
cost of providing for the families of workers who died years before 
their time. Those costs are real. No legislative proposal can make them 
disappear. All legislation can do is shift those costs from one party 
to another.
  Any proposal which would have the effect of shifting more of the 
financial burden onto the backs of injured workers is unacceptable to 
me, and I would hope that it would be unacceptable to every one of us. 
The key test of any legislative proposal on asbestos claims is whether, 
by reducing transaction costs, it will put more money into the pockets 
of seriously injured workers and their families than they are receiving 
under the current system. That should be our goal.
  I believe that a properly designed trust fund to compensate workers 
suffering with asbestos-induced disease can move us toward that goal. 
To do so, it must use inclusive medical criteria which cover all 
workers who have sustained real injuries, it must provide fair levels 
of compensation for all workers who have been injured, and it must 
guarantee that all injured workers who qualify will receive full 
compensation on a timely basis. At best, this legislation satisfies 
only one of these three criteria.
  Any proposal which would merely create one new large underfunded 
trust in place of the many smaller underfunded bankruptcy trusts which 
exist today is unacceptable. Injured workers need certainty even more 
than businesses and insurers.
  One basic test of fairness is how a compensation system treats the 
most seriously injured victims. S. 2290 fails this test miserably. 
Those who meet the medical criteria for the most serious illnesses 
would still not be fairly compensated.
  Mesothelioma is a horrible disease which is usually fatal. There is 
no question that it is caused by asbestos exposure. In the current 
system, mesothelioma victims often receive multi-million dollar 
settlements. This bill will limit them to much less.
  The gravest injustice done by the bill is to lung cancer victims. We 
all understand how devastating lung cancer can be. The issue with lung 
cancer is causation. If a worker had substantial asbestos exposure and 
was a non-smoker, his primary lung cancer was almost certainly caused 
by asbestos. Yet the bill would pay these victims as little as 
$225,000. In many instances, that will not even cover their medical 
expenses. They are currently receiving much higher judgments in the 
courts, and fairness requires far more compensation for their life 
threatening diseases than this bill offers.
  If the worker smoked--and unfortunately most of these workers did--
the combination of tobacco and asbestos exposure dramatically increases 
the likelihood of contracting lung cancer.
  Workers who smoke and have been exposed to asbestos are over four 
times more likely to get lung cancer than smokers with no asbestos 
exposure. Asbestos is clearly a major contributor to their lung 
cancers. Yet, this bill would give them next to nothing. Under the 
terms of this bill, they would receive between $25,000 to $75,000. That 
is outrageous. These victims, who must have at least 15 weighted years 
of asbestos exposure, deserve much more--they deserve a level of 
compensation that reflects the reality of their conditions and their 
families' needs.
  Even when the worker's lungs show specific evidence of asbestos 
disease, raising the probability that the asbestos exposure 
significantly contributed to the lung cancer to a virtual certainty, 
the legislation would pay them as little as $150,000. That is 
incredibly low. These lung cancer victims have literally had their 
lives shattered by asbestos. They must be fairly compensated in any 
legitimate national trust proposal. They are not in the Frist proposal.
  To make matters even worse, the legislation would actually allow 
workers' compensation and health insurance companies to seek 
reimbursement out of the meager amounts these seriously ill workers 
receive from the asbestos trust. Thus, the worker and his family may 
literally end up with nothing despite his undeniable injuries. At the 
very least, the bill should protect the compensation paid to a worker 
by the trust from subrogation claims.
  Proponents of this bill argue that in the tort system too much money 
is

[[Page 7214]]

going to victims who are not really impaired and not enough is going to 
those who are truly sick. But their self-proclaimed concern for the 
truly sick certainly is not reflected in this bill. Lung cancer victims 
are ``truly sick'' by anyone's definition. In fact, a large percentage 
of them will have their lives cut short by this disease. Yet even in 
these cases, the most compelling cases, S. 2290 provides grossly 
inadequate compensation. I am deeply troubled by the way this 
legislation treats even the sickest of the sick.
  Not only does this bill not provide adequate levels of compensation, 
but it does not even contain sufficient funding to pay the compensation 
levels contained in the bill. According to a CBO analysis, it is 
underfunded by over $25 billion dollars. CBO's cost estimate is $140 
billion.
  Furthermore, there is no guarantee that this bill will raise even the 
$109 billion which the sponsors say is necessary. The bill establishes 
contribution tiers for defendant corporations of various sizes and 
asbestos histories. However, the Senate has no hard information about 
the number of companies which will fall in each tier. Thus, the 
aggregate amount which will be raised to fund the asbestos trust is 
highly speculative. Under the proposed funding plan--some 
corporations--such as Halliburton and WR Grace--can escape 
accountability for their wrong-doing by paying only a small percentage 
of the amounts they are currently responsible to pay. As long as 
companies such as Halliburton and Grace are permitted to pay billions 
of dollars less than their fair share, it will be extremely difficult--
if not impossible--to fund the trust at a level sufficient to fairly 
compensate those who have been poisoned by asbestos.
  Similarly, the manner of determining the amount that individual 
insurers and reinsurers will contribute to the trust is also 
questionable. It appears to unfairly benefit some companies at the 
expense of others. The way it has been structured, it may actually 
create unintended legal obstacles to the expeditious payment of 
billions of dollars into the trust by reinsurers with the largest 
asbestos exposure.
  These funding concerns seriously jeopardize the financial viability 
of the trust and its capacity to compensate injured workers in the 
manner promised. In fact, there is no guarantee that the dollars will 
be there to fully pay all eligible victims what the legislation 
promises they will receive.
  If the asbestos trust does become insolvent, workers will have to 
wait years before they can return to the tort system. Under the Biden 
amendment adopted by the Judiciary Committee, if the trust was unable 
to fully pay claims in a timely manner, injured workers would 
immediately regain their right to seek compensation in the courts.
  Unfortunately, that right--so essential to fundamental fairness--has 
been removed in the Frist bill. Victims will have to wait as long as 7 
years after the trust becomes insolvent before they can take their 
claim to court. Many of them will be dead by then. And, if they do 
return to court, the workers will not have the same rights that they do 
today. Under the Frist bill, seriously ill workers can find themselves 
in an intolerable legal limbo through no fault of their own. All of us 
should find that unacceptable.
  The danger that the asbestos trust, as structured in this 
legislation, will be unable to meet its financial obligations to the 
victims is very real. There is a serious risk of a substantial 
shortfall in the early years, when nearly 300,000 pending cases will be 
transferred to the newly created national trust for payment. The trust 
may not have the resources to pay those claims in a timely manner. 
Payments to critically ill people may be delayed for years, and the 
trust itself may become insolvent.
  The best way to reduce the enormous financial burden on the trust in 
the early years would be to leave many of those pending cases in the 
tort system, especially cases which were close to resolution. That 
would be fair to the parties in those cases and it would greatly 
improve the financial viability of the trust. Unfortunately, the Frist 
bill would do just the opposite. It fails to respect stare decisis even 
in cases where substantial judicial determinations have already been 
made. In many cases, it would actually abrogate jury verdicts and 
existing settlements, requiring the injured workers to start from 
scratch. That is terribly unfair. It will also greatly increase the 
burden on the asbestos trust.
  Unfortunately, there is so much wrong with this legislation that I 
could literally discuss the shortfalls for hours. However, that would 
serve no purpose. Clearly, the issues are too complex and too 
interrelated to fix in a few days on the Senate floor. For that reason, 
the Senate should reject the motion to proceed to S. 2209 and send the 
parties back to the drawing board. The only way to produce an 
acceptable bill is to seriously address the legitimate concerns of 
injured workers as well as the concerns of the corporate defendants.
  The Frist bill clearly fails that test. It is not a bill which 
reduces the high transaction costs in the current system, and thus puts 
more money in the pockets of injured workers while reducing the costs 
to businesses and their insurers. That would be a real solution.
  It is a bill which merely shifts more of the financial burden of 
asbestos-induced disease to the injured workers by unfairly and 
arbitrarily limiting the liability of defendants. Sick workers would 
receive lower levels of compensation than they receive on average in 
the current system, and payment of even those lower levels of 
compensation would not be guaranteed. That is no solution at all.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately 
following the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, I be permitted to 
speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, what is the business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the motion to proceed 
to S. 2290.


                               Education

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I want to take a few minutes and talk 
about an issue off the pending matter, if I may, before the Senate. 
While it may not be germane to the subject matter before the Senate, 
the matter I want to talk about is extremely germane to the American 
public and what they are interested in. That is education. I 
particularly want to focus for a few minutes on higher education.
  We are now coming into the months of April and May when students will 
be wrapping up their academic year and taking exams. Those who are in 
their last year will be graduating and going out into the private 
sector or graduate school.
  As we focus on graduation and the termination of an academic year, I 
think it is important to take stock of the financial availability of 
most students to access higher education in this country, and what we 
are doing about it as we conclude this academic year. It is also 
important to ask what will be available next year to students who are 
either starting higher education or are continuing their higher 
education.
  What are the economic challenges these individuals and their families 
face as it relates to affording college? I want to spend a couple of 
minutes describing what the present situation is as it relates to 
college cost, how important it is to have access to college, and where 
we are today in our ability to try to make college more accessible and 
more affordable.
  In the 21st century we must have the best educated and best prepared 
generation of Americans we have ever produced if we are going to be 
highly competitive in a global marketplace and have a growing and 
expanding economy to produce goods and services of increasing value; 
that is, more technology and more sophistication to offer

[[Page 7215]]

the 95 percent of the population which lives outside the United States 
all over this globe.
  We have seen tuition and fees at public colleges and universities go 
up 26 percent over the last 38 months. Since President Bush took office 
on January 20 of 2001, tuition and fees at public colleges and 
universities has gone up more than 25 percent--close to 26 percent in 
38 months.
  Last year alone, on average, tuition at a public university rose 14 
percent, and over 10 percent in my own State of Connecticut. The 
average total cost of attending a public 4-year college is now over 
$9,000, and for private colleges the average cost is $24,000.
  As tuition rates increase, so does the portion of a family's income 
needed to pay tuition. On average, 29 percent of a family's income goes 
toward public university tuition and 41 percent goes toward private 
university tuition. Just think about that: almost 30 percent of a 
family's income paying a public college tuition and more than 40 
percent to go to a private university or college. In comparison, a 
family's mortgage payment represents 32 percent of annual income. 
Education is now eating up more of a family budget than a home 
mortgage--the largest single investment most families ever make is 
owning their own home.
  It is estimated that approximately 200,000 college-ready high school 
graduates will not pursue higher education this year because they do 
not have the resources to do it and don't have access to the various 
programs that may provide them some assistance.
  Apart from initial affordability, students also often graduate with 
huge amounts of debt. In Connecticut, the average student graduates in 
4 years $15,000 in debt. The numbers are rather clear.
  We are seeing a tremendous economic burden growing with each and 
every passing year, for families and individuals who wish to go on and 
get that absolutely critical higher education they need and we need 
them to have.
  Pell grants are such a great cornerstone of the Federal financial aid 
system, but they are shrinking in value. Pell grants originally covered 
80 percent of the cost of attending a public university. Today, at 
$4,050, they cover only 30 percent; and at a 4-year private college, 16 
percent. Imagine that, from 80 percent down to 34 percent.
  The maximum Pell amount remains stagnant at a time when tuition is 
going up, people are losing jobs and extra income, and when higher 
education is increasingly the ticket to a better life not only for the 
students but for us, as well.
  Today, the average low-income student has an annual unmet need of 
almost $4,000 in college expenses, costs not covered by grants, loans, 
work, or family savings. These are the students that an increase in the 
Pell grant would most directly help.
  What are we doing about this? The President's budget is clearly not 
in the best interest, at all, of serving this critical need that, by 
all accounts, we admit is necessary. I don't know of anyone who does 
not go back to their respective States and talk about the importance of 
education, the importance particularly of higher education, that people 
have the ability to earn that degree.
  I am sure every one of my colleagues has said exactly the words I am 
about to share, or something similar: No one ought to be denied a 
higher education because they lack the financial resources. It goes to 
the depth of a person's drive, the depth of their character, the depth 
of their ambition. It ought not be the depth of their parents' or their 
pockets that determines whether someone can have access to a higher 
education. I am sure we all feel that way.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator be good enough to yield?
  Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield to my colleague.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator has appropriately pointed out the explosion 
of increased costs of tuition for the sons and daughters of middle-
income families. This is basically a middle America working-class 
family issue. As the Senator has pointed out so well and so eloquently, 
it is at the heart of the hopes and dreams of every family in this 
country.
  I am sure the Senator would agree with me, when we talk about 
education, we are not only talking about a better educated society; we 
are talking about individuals who are going to be the stewards of our 
democratic institutions and also the individuals who are going to be 
able to lead this country in terms of the international global economy 
and beyond that; individuals who are going to be able to be in the 
Armed Forces of this country.
  The Senator is mentioning the increases in tuition. The Senator 
pointed out the costs to families: in many families, the children 
cannot go to college. And if they are able to go, they experience 
increased debt.
  I understand the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance 
has said as a result of the increase in tuition, there are almost 
200,000 young individuals, young men and women, sons of working class 
families in this country, who effectively have been priced out of the 
opportunity to continue in higher education. And reports point out the 
enormous increase in indebtedness of even those who are going to 
schools. We know that over the last 10 years, indebtedness has actually 
almost doubled. The average debt families have when they graduate is 
some $17,000.
  I am wondering if the Senator remembers that it was a few weeks ago 
the Senate passed a $2.4 trillion budget. We had an opportunity to 
provide a helping hand to students in this country who come from 
working families, by increasing the Pell grants for the young people in 
this country. It was the judgment and the decision of this body and the 
Republican administration, the Bush administration, to effectively say 
no, we will not increase the Pell grants, in spite of the fact--I know 
the Senator remembers this--that this President, when he ran for the 
Presidency of the United States, said in the final days of the campaign 
in the State of New Hampshire, that he was committed to increasing the 
Pell grants to $5,100. He said, in the State of New Hampshire on August 
thirtieth, in the year 2000: Pell grants significantly affect the 
ability of a child to stay in college or to stay in school. The future 
of a child eligible for a Pell grant will be affected by the size of 
the Pell grant. I am going to ask Congress to bolster first year aid 
from $3,300 to $5,100.
  Does the Senator from Connecticut remember when we had an opportunity 
to do something about helping middle-class families in this country, to 
provide some help and assistance to them, to ease the burden of the 
increase in tuition, whether there was any effort from the Republican 
side to increase the Pell grants to provide this important help and 
assistance to these qualified young students who are seeking to 
continue their education?
  Mr. DODD. In response to my colleague, I very clearly remember 
supporting the senior Senator from Massachusetts and his amendment that 
would have increased the higher education budget, including, obviously, 
an increase in the Pell grants to meet exactly what the commitment of 
the President had been on this subject matter. We were unable to get 
that.
  It is important to point out to people the effects. We have now had a 
freeze in Pell grants over the last 3 years, despite the President's 
campaign promise to raise them. I mentioned earlier that a Pell grant 
now pays about 34 percent of the cost of public higher education. It 
was at 80 percent when it was originally passed.
  Let me also state what shrinking resources and rising costs have 
done. My colleague from Massachusetts has pointed out that the average 
student now finishes college in excess of $17,000 debt. As a result of 
freezing the Pell grant over the last 3 years, and the administration's 
proposal to raise freshman loan limits, we are now told that student 
debt could increase nationally by almost $5 billion. If we take student 
debt, that will now grow as a result of not having Pell grants trying 
to keep some pace with the increased cost of education, if students 
have to take out more loans, we will have student debt

[[Page 7216]]

amount to $5 billion more nationally than presently is the case.
  The President's budget also froze funding for work-study programs in 
addition to Pell grants. We watched, over the last 38 months, tuition 
costs go up at public universities 26 percent. Costs go up and the 
President's budget says: No, no, I am not going to give you a nickel 
more for Pell grants. Freeze work-study. Freeze Pell grants. Not a 
penny more for higher education despite costs going up and here is $5 
billion more debt to shoulder as you leave higher education to go out 
and try to get a job, get into the workforce, raise a family.
  I don't know of anyone who believes that is a sound investment in the 
21st century. I thank my colleague for raising those points.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Does the Senator agree with me that at one time we, as a 
nation, made a commitment to every child in this country that if they 
were qualified to get into any institution of higher learning based 
upon their academic standing, a series of grants and loans would be 
available to them so they would be able to go to the school, the 
college to which they were admitted?
  We saw over the period of time going back to the 1970s, going back to 
the time this whole program, the Pell grants and the Stafford loans 
were established, a balance between grants and loans so young people of 
talent could go to the schools and universities to which they were 
admitted.
  Now if I could direct the attention of the Senator from Connecticut, 
what we have seen is a complete abdication of that commitment in the 
fact of the declining purchasing power of the Pell grants, and in the 
reduction of the Work-Study Program. Fundamentally we are saying to the 
young people, and particularly to their parents: You are on your own. 
Go on out there and borrow, and pay a good deal for that additional $5 
billion you will borrow. And there is just going to be paying the 
interest and indebtedness for those young people in the years ahead.
  Would the Senator be good enough to indicate whether he agrees with 
me, that the whole pattern in the recent years under Republican 
leadership has been to reduce the purchasing power, the value of the 
Pell grant, and to require the students to borrow a good deal more, 
which has meant an increase in indebtedness to these students? And 
would he not agree with me, when you visit schools and colleges and you 
meet with these young people around recess time or lunchtime, they are 
talking about their loans rather than talking about their books?
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, the Senator, again, is exactly correct. As 
I noted earlier, we are talking about families who are middle-income 
families, who are lower middle-income families who are out there 
struggling to make ends meet. As I pointed out, the increased cost of a 
public education, as well as a private education, in 38 months has gone 
through the ceiling, outpacing the cost of anything else. Inflation has 
been relatively flat in the last number of months with the economy 
where it is. But yet in the midst of all that, we have seen a 26-
percent increase in the cost of going to a private college or 
university, and a 14-percent increase to go to a public institution.
  So we have seen this tremendous increase in a family's income going 
toward education and tuition. As I pointed out earlier, 29 percent of a 
family's income goes to pay for public university tuition; 41 percent 
goes to pay for private university tuition.
  The debt these kids are faced with, their families are faced with, is 
an additional strain on families who are already paying so much to see 
to it their kids can get the education they need. And we know so 
clearly the importance of education. You find yourself almost wondering 
why you have to say this. I don't know of anyone who believes that for 
a single second this country's ability to maintain itself in a 
leadership position economically and politically can be sustained 
without the proper education. Thomas Jefferson said, 200 years ago this 
year, in 1804, any nation that ever expects to be ignorant and free 
expects what never was and what never possibly could be.
  If you believe that had validity in 1804, you certainly must believe 
that in 2004 it has even more validity, not only in terms of embracing 
and supporting our constitutional principles, but also as to the 
importance of being able to get the education to produce the goods and 
services of high value which 5 percent of the world's population, which 
lives in this country, will be able to market to the 95 percent of the 
world's population which lives outside this country.
  Anyone who believes for a single second that you can deny 200,000 
young people, as you will this year--almost a quarter of a million 
young people--the opportunity to go on to higher education because we 
cannot come up with a few extra bucks to put into a Pell Grant Program 
or a Work-Study Program--if you think America benefits from that, then 
you are deluding yourself. This will be the first generation where the 
older generation is actually cutting back on its commitments in its 
attempts to provide access to higher education for people in this 
country.
  I hope in the coming days as we move through the appropriations 
process and the like, our colleagues will find it possible to break 
this freezing of the budgets to make it possible for students who are 
completing this academic year and thinking about next year, or thinking 
about graduate school, or leaving high school and wanting to go on to 
college--that the Congress of the United States, the President of the 
United States, would stand up and say: We are going to do what we can. 
We are going to meet that promise I made in New Hampshire in the fall 
of 2000 when I promised I would increase Pell grants to more than 
$5,000 per child. I am going to meet that promise before this term is 
over.
  My hope is we will achieve that particular result.
  I see my colleague from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DODD. Yes.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, you were speaking 
about increasing the Pell grant, which strikes a chord with me. Senator 
Pell was my predecessor, the architect of this great program. I am sure 
you are aware, but if you can confirm this awareness, the Pell Grant 
program has a $3.7 billion shortfall because of an increase in the 
number of students who have qualified for the Pell grant since our 
economy has not produced jobs over the last several years and has been 
dead in the water until very recently. We, in our budget, included the 
$3.7 billion, but I am told this funding might be in jeopardy in the 
conference, which would be a grievous blow to the Pell Grant Program in 
addition to what you have described. Are you aware of this difficulty?
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Rhode Island. He 
very appropriately points out he succeeded Claiborne Pell, whom the 
Senator from Massachusetts and I had the great privilege of serving 
with. The Senator from Rhode Island knows the wonderful contribution he 
made to millions of young Americans, Americans of all ages, but 
particularly young Americans.
  I was not aware of what my colleague from Rhode Island told me. I 
think that is extremely important information. I would hope, as I am 
sure he does, the conferees and the American public would let conferees 
and the leadership here in Congress know this shortfall must not be 
allowed to exist if we are going to have any hope at all of meeting 
some of the obligations we have.
  I might ask my colleague from Rhode Island, give us some indication 
how that is working now. Does he believe that is going to be the case? 
And what would be the implications of that?
  Mr. NICKLES. Regular order.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I believe the Senator has the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut may yield only 
for a question.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I am responding to a question. Without 
yielding my right to the floor, I am

[[Page 7217]]

asking my colleague from Rhode Island to respond to a question.
  Mr. REED. Will my colleague yield for another question?
  Mr. DODD. Yes.
  Mr. REED. First, the Pell Grant Program is in jeopardy because of its 
low funding levels. As you and Senator Kennedy have pointed out so 
accurately, the maximum award has not been raised, contrary to the 
President's promise. In addition, the $3.7 billion shortfall exists 
today. We have taken a step on our side to remedy the shortfall, but it 
is unclear what the other side and the conferees will do. So that is 
another detriment to the Pell Grant Program.
  But I will ask a final question of the Senator. The President's 
budget not only inadequately funds the Pell Grant Program, but it 
eliminates the LEAP Program--Leveraging Educational Assistance 
Partnerships--a collaboration between the State and Federal governments 
to provide need-based grants to low-income students.
  The President's budget also zeroes out funds for the Perkins Loan 
Capital Contributions, which provides low-interest loans to millions of 
low-income college students.
  Additionally, the President's budget fails to increase funding for 
the campus-based programs, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants 
and Federal Work-Study, as well as the early awareness programs, TRIO 
and GEAR UP.
  I again inquire whether the Senator is aware that in addition to the 
blows that have been taken to the Pell Grant Program, so many other 
Federal programs that aid particularly low-income Americans are not 
being adequately funded. I think that goes directly to your point, I 
say to the Senator, that 200,000 young Americans with talent, ambition, 
and drive are unable to go to college because we are not providing the 
resources.
  Mr. DODD. Again, Madam President, I am very grateful to my colleague 
from Rhode Island for pointing out matters I had not addressed; that 
is, these other areas of higher education.
  This is an assault on higher education. But more importantly, it is 
an assault on young people in this country who are going to provide the 
well-being. I always like to point out this Nation historically, even 
during times of our most significant crises, has found a time and a 
place to support higher education. I have often pointed out one of the 
first acts of Congress in 1789, as we were still struggling to get on 
our feet, was the Northwest Ordinance, which set aside lands for 
education. It was a rather remarkable accomplishment. Think of all the 
things the first Congress had to deal with. Education was one of the 
top priorities on their list.
  Then right in the middle of the Civil War--imagine the country 
divided, wondering whether we would survive as a nation--the Congress 
of the United States passed something called the Morrill Act, which was 
the land grant colleges. I believe the University of Rhode Island--I 
know the University of Connecticut got started as a land grant college, 
and I know colleges all across this country got their start because of 
the Morrill Act. Congress found the money during the great Civil War to 
fund higher education.
  Even before the end of World War II, before the defeat of nazism and 
the Japanese empire, the Congress passed the GI Bill. And think, if you 
will, of the investment made in those years, coming off the war years, 
and how we have benefitted, when you consider a generation of Americans 
which was able to get an education and go on, and how we have been paid 
back a thousandfold by the contributions of a generation of young 
Americans who fought in World War II, who were able to get an 
education, and then provide the kind of innovation and creativity and 
jobs and incomes that has helped us grow to the great Nation we are in 
terms of economic strength.
  So there was the Northwest Ordinance, the Morrill Act, the GI bill, 
generations that understood the importance of investing in education. 
Here we are in the 21st century, we have a President that not only 
doesn't have an idea about how to increase resources for higher 
education, he wants to cut back on what we have. How do you explain 
that to the American people when we are trying to increase the 
opportunities for higher education?
  I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, if I may ask the Senator, we have 
talked about higher education. Does the Senator not agree with me that 
we have seen cutbacks in support for K- 12 as well? We have seen the 
failure of funding No Child Left Behind, which has left 4.6 million 
children behind. So we are leaving the children behind in higher 
education. We are leaving them in No Child Left Behind.
  I would like to ask the Senator from Connecticut as well whether he 
is not concerned, as I am, about the failure to fund the Head Start 
Program which reaches out and helps 4-year-olds and 5-year-olds prior 
to the time they enter kindergarten, to give them skills and help in 
building confidence so they can gain knowledge and understanding in 
their early years in school.
  Would the Senator not agree with me that what we are talking about is 
basically failing almost a whole generation? There are 54 million 
elementary and secondary school students across this country, and then 
we have the millions of children going on to college. And now we are 
talking about the millions who are eligible for the Head Start Program, 
who failed to receive the support they need.
  Would the Senator agree with me that money isn't everything, but it 
is a pretty clear indication of a Nation's priorities? We make choices 
about what the Nation's priorities are. What we are doing now, with the 
conclusion of the budget which we passed here, is failing the children 
in higher education. We have failed children with No Child Left Behind. 
We are failing the children with the funding of the Head Start Program. 
What does that say about the commitment of this Nation in terms of the 
young people? And to their families, hard-working American families, 
what does that say about our willingness to reach out a helping hand to 
these families to make sure the education system is going to be the 
best that it can be?
  Mr. DODD. I would say to my colleague, he has hit the nail on the 
head in talking about elementary and secondary education, beginning 
with, obviously, Head Start and preschool efforts. He has cited the 
numbers, and he is absolutely correct. But more than the numbers, when 
you start to talk about the dollar amounts, I think you can probably 
see the eyes of even the most determined listener to glaze over. When I 
talk about an $8.6 billion shortfall to No Child Left Behind this year 
alone, shortchanged more than $26 billion since passage, I am 
disturbed. It is the children and the families themselves that feel the 
shortfalls. Families lacking the kinds of investments that we know make 
a difference in their children's educational lives.
  We know categorically, after more than a quarter of a century of 
watching, the benefits of the Head Start Program. It gives them that 
even start. When they enter kindergarten or the first grade, it puts 
them on a level playing field with other children who come from 
slightly more advantaged situations than they may have.
  We know that getting Title I money into our school districts has made 
a huge difference to schools, and certainly we need to be doing far 
better on special education. But to give some idea of what these 
shortfalls mean, this year alone over 7,500 school districts are going 
to see their elementary school funding cut this July. Millions of 
disadvantaged children will be left behind because of inadequate 
resources in Title I. More than 1.3 million children won't receive 
afterschool services because of funding freezes that have occurred. 
Teacher quality, English language acquisition, impact aid, rural 
education all have been frozen in this country despite the increasing 
demands that have occurred.
  The President's budget eliminates 38 programs in areas such as arts 
education, school counseling, small school support, dropout prevention. 
You don't need to tell the American public about the importance of 
these things. They make a difference every day. The fact

[[Page 7218]]

is that we are just decimating these significant efforts, many of which 
were achieved and were created through bipartisan effort and support.
  I am deeply concerned about what is happening to these younger people 
as they enter the school system, where we want them to have an equal 
opportunity to learn, where they get uncertified teachers and old 
textbooks, some that say today maybe one day we will land a man on the 
moon. We actually have children using textbooks that predate 1969 when 
we landed a man on the moon. Imagine in 2004, you discover your child 
has a science book that says that. That happens today. Or that your 
child walks into a biology class or chemistry class in elementary 
school and almost 35 percent of them in poor rural districts and poor 
urban districts do not have a certified teacher who is teaching.
  This is the United States of America. If you want us to grow and be 
stronger, you are going to have to make the investments.
  I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for raising these issues 
about both elementary and secondary education as well as higher 
education. The American public needs to know this.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield for a final question, I think 
the Senator from Connecticut has the floor. Before we leave this 
discussion, I have heard the resolution of the Senator from 
Connecticut, his determination. I would like to ask him whether he 
intends to battle with the rest of us in the remaining days of this 
session to try to provide that kind of help to these working families 
in these areas of education. Does he not agree with me that this ought 
to still be a priority, and that even as we are coming into the 
critical times of the appropriations committees, we will have some 
opportunity to continue this battle and call Senators to account to 
find out whether they believe it is the responsibility of this 
institution to continue to invest in the children of our country and to 
continue the opportunities of education, and that is the highest 
priority we have here? Do I hear from the Senator that he will join in 
that battle and continue to fight for those children?
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I commit to my colleague and to others as 
well. This has been an ongoing effort. It will be a continuing one. 
Nothing is more important. I have often said, if you can only solve one 
issue, I would choose this one. I don't think there is any more 
important problem to solve. Not that others are not important, but if 
we fail to address the education question effectively, then we leave 
every other issue in jeopardy, to chance. That goes to the heart of 
endorsing and supporting our constitutional principles, our values 
system, as well as our economic growth.
  I am not minimizing other issues. I am often asked, as we all are, 
what is the single most important issue we have to deal with. Obviously 
issues of going to war, sending young men and women into harm's way, 
amending the Constitution, confirming a justice to the Supreme Court 
are high on that list. I would place education as the No. 1 priority, a 
substantive issue that ought to be on every one of our lists.
  I thank the Senator for taking a few minutes out of today to talk 
about this. There will be other opportunities to raise these concerns 
and these questions, and I hope that before this session of Congress 
ends, we will have a more effective result for the American people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been interested in this discussion. 
It has nothing to do with asbestos, but nevertheless an important 
discussion. I have to say I have taken great interest in the education 
processes myself. The other side just thinks there is money growing on 
trees. Frankly, there is never enough money to satisfy them.
  All of us wish we could do better. I wish every school district in 
the country would teach music because it softens kids' lives. When I 
was a young kid, I was born on the wrong side of the tracks. I was a 
tough little kid. My mother made me learn the piano for 6 months and 
then made me play the violin, and that made me even tougher, carrying 
that violin to school. I have to say that softened me and gave me a 
soft side to what some people think is a fairly tough guy. So I commend 
my colleagues for wanting to do more. But having Democrats call for 
more and more spending is a little bit like a glutton who has eaten 
everything on the table and now wants more.
  There is no end of the spending that they would do, even if we do 
have a $1.2 trillion deficit. This President has all he can handle. 
There is no question about it. I commiserate with him. I also look at 
the outrageous costs of some aspects of higher education brought into 
discussion here, what a gravy train it is for some people in many 
universities, and how tuition has gone up so much to pay for the gravy 
train. It reminds me of the trial lawyers we have been talking about 
with respect to asbestos reform.
  Mr. President, I wish to respond to some criticism some friends 
across the aisle have made regarding my comments about personal injury 
lawyers. In particular, I have been criticized for repeating in public 
on the floor of the Senate what many people are saying in private--that 
there is a political tie between many of these trial lawyers and many 
of my friends across the aisle. I don't think it is news that, as a 
rule, you will find that, all things being equal, most trial lawyers 
will likely support with their voices, and especially their wallets, 
the Democratic Presidential nominee and other Democrats across the 
aisle. They are the largest single hard money donors to the Democrats--
the liberal Democrats. It is hard to find any conservative Democrats, 
other than one I know of over there.
  If I offended anybody by repeating in public a widely known dynamic, 
I guess I should apologize. I also recognize that I am unlikely to be 
the American Trial Lawyers' man of the year awardee. I am a member of 
that organization. I know a lot of great trial lawyers who are honest, 
decent, and do what is right in serving the American people. They know 
that when they are right, I am on their side. But in this case they are 
not right--the few who are abusing the laws.
  Seriously, if in this debate I have sometimes come down too hard on 
personal injury lawyers, I have done so because I am concerned that 
what stands in the way of a much needed asbestos bill is the handful of 
overzealous, greedy personal injury lawyers--just a handful of lawyers 
in this country. I don't intend to malign personal injury lawyers as a 
class. I believe personal injury attorneys can serve and, in many 
cases, have served a vital function for many injured plaintiffs.
  While I don't always see eye to eye with the personal injury bar, 
when I think they are right, I don't hesitate to say it and they know 
it. I had plenty of them thanking me for saying so when they were right 
during the discussion over the tobacco legislation in 1998. I was 
impressed with Richard Scruggs, or Dickie Scruggs, in the Castano group 
of trial lawyers. I think many trial attorneys played a constructive 
role in reaching a historic compromise with the tobacco industry. I 
helped them, and they know it. They were right and I backed them. Some 
in Congress held out for so much money that it was impossible to pass 
Federal tobacco legislation. The theme of some in Congress holding out 
for too much money is applicable to the asbestos debate.
  In any event, the work that a gifted group of trial lawyers did with 
Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore deserves a lot of credit. I 
supported their efforts publicly and even provided my support for 
reasonable compensation for those attorneys. I am not afraid to speak 
up for trial attorneys when I think they are right. I irritated people 
on my side who felt they should not get the compensation that I think 
they more than earned.
  Frankly, as a former medical malpractice defense lawyer, I liked 
nothing more than to go up against the best plaintiffs' attorneys for 
the pure challenge of competing against the most skilled adversary. As 
a plaintiffs' lawyer, I liked nothing more than having

[[Page 7219]]

gone up against the best defense lawyers in the country, having the 
thrill to be able to compete with them. In many cases, I would win 
against them.
  We all have to recognize that the work of personal injury attorneys 
on asbestos litigation has dated back 30 or more years. Without the 
hard work of these lawyers, it is unlikely the U.S. would have come so 
far in responding to the dangers of asbestos. It is the success of the 
trial attorneys that put us in the position of recommending legislation 
that calls for a private trust fund to compensate asbestos victims 
without the need for each one to establish causation.
  In short, personal injury lawyers have won the case, and they won it 
long ago. What this legislation is trying to do is sort out who pays 
and how much, and do so in a fashion that minimizes the transaction 
costs so that more of the money goes to the injured persons and less of 
the money gets swallowed up in litigation, and the courts can get 
unclogged, and so that other fairly brought litigation can be heard.
  In compensating asbestos victims, we must be mindful not to corrupt 
more and more firms, which results in more and more job losses, and 
more and more loss of health care, and losing more and more value in 
retirement stock portfolios, and more and more loss of pensions. That 
is what we are trying to do here.
  All I hear is whining from the other side. We have heard a lot of 
talk about how much the bill costs and how much it will pay out to 
victims. We heard talk about who pays, and how much, and whether they 
are paying enough.
  If we ever get on the bill, we will hear more talk about these 
important issues, as we should. I have no problem with that. But they 
are filibustering even the motion to proceed. My gosh, when are the 
American people going to understand what is going on? They have 
filibustered virtually everything that has come up this year. It is 
going to take a supermajority to pass the simplist of bills the way 
they have been carrying on. It boggles my mind. But that is what is at 
stake in tomorrow's cloture vote.
  Will we vote for cloture so we can talk about the issues on the bill 
itself? I hope we will proceed to the bill. But it shows the politics 
that are being played. For my friends on the other side to come on the 
floor and say this bill doesn't do enough, after we have given and 
given and given in to their suggestions time after time, or to say it 
is not procedurally proper or not written right, after 15 months of 
dedicated, hard effort--I have to say by a few Democrats, and by many 
on our side--it goes beyond the pale.
  It is true that I have irritated some personal injury lawyers in some 
of my remarks. The ones I am talking about deserve irritation. I don't 
believe they are honest. I believe they are exploiting a system and 
taking moneys that should go to people who are sick. What I am about to 
say may further irritate them and some of those across the aisle.
  I have some important questions to raise with respect to attorneys' 
fees. Frankly, the issue of attorneys' fees is a key issue because it 
is critical in determining how much of the funds will actually end up 
in the pockets of the injured people. As I have said, today about 60 
percent of the funds wither away to lawyers on both sides of these 
cases. You can expect that about one-third of any recovery will go to 
the plaintiffs' attorneys. In a no-fault, nonadversarial compensation 
system, there should be no place for the routine attorneys' fee level 
of one-third of the recovery.
  Accordingly, in our bill, we employ the same fee schedule used by the 
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA. In the RECA law--a bill I 
wrote and passed through this body a number of times--the lawyers' cut 
is 2 percent of the recovery in noncontested cases, and 10 percent for 
complicated cases. These cases are like rolling off a log if this is 
passed. Lawyers do not deserve 60 percent in defendant and plaintiff 
attorneys' fees, in addition to the transaction clause. The fee 
schedule results in the lion's share going to the injured persons and 
their families. This is the way it should be in the radiation exposure 
cases involving downwinders of nuclear tests, and this is the way it 
should be for asbestos victims. This is what is in our bill. It is a 
long settled way of solving these problems and a reasonable way that 
pays the attorneys what they should be paid--actually more, in many 
instances--but it stops the gravy train that is ripping off the sick 
and needy who have suffered from asbestos.
  What is unknown is what our friends believe to be a fair level of 
compensation for personal injury lawyers in this new no-fault system. I 
ask today for our colleagues to come to the floor and tell us if they 
support or oppose our proposed attorneys' fees levels, if they believe 
our 2 percent for uncontested cases that are like rolling off a log, 
and 10 percent for those who might have some small contest, and they 
will still be like rolling off a log compared to litigation in trial. 
If this provision is not proper, please tell us how they would do it. 
We have not had the slightest suggestion from them.
  If they believe it is still appropriate to retain attorneys' fees of 
33 percent to 40 percent or higher, please explain why this is fair or 
necessary in a no-fault, nonadversarial system that this bill would 
make into reality. In the spirit of good faith, we agreed to move the 
program into the labor-friendly Department of Labor. The Secretary of 
Labor does not favor this. The White House does not favor this. I, 
frankly, do not favor this. I am afraid that will run the program into 
the ground because the Labor Department has been controlled by liberal 
bureaucrats for many years. But we are willing, in the interest of 
getting this done, in the interest of helping these people, to even do 
that.
  Running a program to compensate workers out of the Department of 
Labor may be somewhat akin to voluntarily playing the Celtics in the 
Boston Garden. We made a genuine concession on the administrative 
process, as our colleagues know. We have repeatedly asked them to 
recognize it is appropriate for them to act in a spirit of genuine 
compromise with respect to attorneys' fees.
  Let's face it, numbers are flying around in this debate. One way that 
the difference between our respective proposed level of total claims 
can be bridged is to reach agreement on the appropriate level of 
compensation for attorneys' fees. But we cannot even get them to talk 
about that. Even if we could, we could not talk about it because we are 
on a filibuster on the motion to even proceed to the bill. Once we go 
to the bill, we would have a filibuster on that, if we can ever get to 
that point, but at least we would be able to be on the bill.
  We believe the RECA, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, 
exposure level of 2 percent of noncontested cases and 10 percent for 
contested cases is both fair and reasonable because both cases will be 
easy for the plaintiffs or those who claim to be sick to get 
compensation if they are sick.
  What do our friends across the aisle think about this? What are they 
proposing on this important issue? I ask they be specific so we and 
other interested parties can evaluate their position on this essential 
question. We have only been negotiating with them for 15 solid months, 
and we still do not have their suggestions. Yet they are saying: Oh, 
this is just too premature. That is after many of them said last year 
we should have gotten this bill done before the end of last year's 
session.
  When is it going to end? When is this kind of phoniness going to end? 
A great deal of the difference in the compensation levels, in each of 
our respective levels of total compensation, in our bill it is $114 
billion plus a $10 billion set of contingency funds, and in one widely 
cited Democratic claim values amendment $167 billion can be bridged by 
factoring in the share that can go to personal injury attorneys.
  I do not want to cut them out from reasonable fees, but I do think 
$60 billion is unreasonable because that money comes out of the hides 
of the sick people. No wonder attorneys in this country are so looked 
down upon,

[[Page 7220]]

especially personal injury lawyers. I happen to know about 90 percent 
of the ATL people are sick of this and sick of this 10 percent who are 
running wild taking advantage of the whole system and basically 
destroying the right of individual sick people to get adequate 
compensation.
  This bill would take care of that problem. If the Democrats are 
advocating that the customary one-third of the award can go to the 
lawyers, then we are not that far apart as to how much money should go 
to injured workers and families. We should work together to see if we 
can agree on a reasonable level of compensation for these attorneys. I 
call them the Fred Barrons of this world and other personal injury 
lawyers who are bringing these suits in selected favored jurisdictions 
so they can get easier verdicts. I challenge them to come in and tell 
us what would be a reasonable level of attorneys' fees, and let's quit 
playing the game.
  This is a no-fault, nonadversarial system that does not justify the 
type of attorneys' fees that have been ripping off the public, 
especially the sick, the weak, the feeble, and the injured the way the 
current broken tort system is. I have no doubt that public discussion 
of this issue may bring great consternation among the ranks of some of 
my Democratic friends due to their close relationships with many in the 
trial attorney bar. But if we are ever going to have a meaningful no-
fault trust fund asbestos bill, we are not going to be able to 
guarantee and should not be asked to guarantee the usual one-third to 
40 percent of the take going to the plaintiffs' trial lawyers regime. 
One-third or more going to the lawyers is simply too much, especially 
in a no-fault, nonadversarial system.
  The unions should recognize this, and the public should recognize 
this, but most of all these lawyers ought to recognize this and quit 
ripping off the sick and the downtrodden and those who really deserve 
these moneys.
  The silence of my friends across the aisle on this issue, both in 
private and public talks, is deafening. When we did the RECA bill, I 
was chairman of the Labor Committee. I fought that bill through for 
years until we finally were able to get it done. All these people are 
asking for more money for education, more money for all the social 
programs, more money for this, more money for that, and they were the 
ones who were giving us a rough time. Finally, after I was reelected, 
they then realized we better get on the ball and do something about 
this. That is how the radiation exposure compensation law, which is now 
followed by countries all over the world because of what we did, is now 
law, compensating people, not very much for the suffering they went 
through, nothing like we are going to compensate from the private 
sector, no way near what we are going to compensate here.
  The silence of my friends on the other side of the aisle, both in 
private and public talks, is deafening. I heard some of my colleagues, 
who I respect, come on this floor with a straight face and say this is 
not the right way to do it, although last year it was. They were 
talking about this administrative approach is the right way to do it. 
Why isn't it the right way to do it during a Presidential election 
year? I ask the people out there watching and listening, why is it they 
suddenly think this is not the right way to do it when we put up even 
more money before, giving in on at least 53 different amendments, have 
moved this into an administrative process in the Department of Labor 
that many on our side question? Why is it that they are still balking 
at this in this Presidential election year?
  I think there is only one conclusion most people are drawing, and I 
hate to see that. I hate to see that. If they do not like this bill, 
they should offer a substitute amendment. Let's have it out. Maybe they 
will win. Maybe these 8,400 companies and 16 insurance companies will 
get clobbered even worse so they can barely survive, and some are still 
going to go into bankruptcy. They certainly will if some of these 
people with their outrageous demands get their way. It is time to stop 
talking generalities and start voting on specific amendments.
  I want next to make a few remarks about the process that has been 
observed to date and why I will be very disappointed if we are not 
allowed to proceed to the bill tomorrow after the cloture vote. Just 
think about it; they are filibustering the motion to proceed. They 
could have easily given in just like that and said, No, let's go to the 
bill, and we will filibuster the bill. That would be the straight up 
way of doing it. But to filibuster the motion to proceed means they 
must be beholden to somebody to pull that kind of a procedural 
mechanism. That does not happen very often, and it should not be 
happening here.
  Frankly, that we are being forced to vote cloture is disturbing to me 
and should be disturbing to everyone, although I do recognize if 
cloture is not invoked, it would be pleasing to these few trial 
attorneys who are milking this system dry at the expense of those who 
are sick and afflicted and downtrodden. They will not have to see if 
their customary one-third or 40 percent of representation in the 
asbestos claims in the new no-fault system can be justified on the 
floor of the Senate. That is just matter of fact and people need to 
know it. That is why I am here on the Senate floor.
  I rise today in response, again, to complaints that I have been 
hearing from some Members on the other side of the aisle about being 
rushed to consider a national solution to this asbestos mess. As many 
of my colleagues know, the asbestos litigation crisis is not new to 
this body. We have been talking about the problem for the better part 
of a decade, but now that we find ourselves on the verge of considering 
a proposed solution, I am puzzled to hear that the process has somehow 
been unfair, that we are not acting as ``proper legislators'' for 
bringing this bill to the floor under the current circumstances.
  I think anybody with brains would find these complaints devoid of any 
merit whatsoever, especially when viewed against the legislative 
history of this asbestos bill.
  While we have tried to build consensus over the past 15 months, 
thousands of asbestos victims have gone uncompensated or left with only 
pennies on the dollars they deserve. Veterans and people like those in 
Libby, MT, are left with no one to sue. More than 70 companies have 
gone bankrupt and dozens more will soon follow.
  Since we started working on this legislation, 60,000 jobs have been 
already lost at a cost of more than $2.2 billion in lost wages alone. 
Let me repeat these numbers so they can sink in. Sixty thousand jobs 
have been already lost at a cost of more than $2.2 billion in lost 
wages alone, and sadly another 400,000 jobs will soon be lost. Yet we 
still talk. There are compelling calls for action. There are empathetic 
expressions of compassion for victims. There are meetings and letters, 
promises of solutions to come and proposals to be made, and yet for all 
of this ocean of good intentions we are all still stuck.
  Frankly, much of the current asbestos litigation is all too 
reminiscent of the mythical Jarndyce case from the Charles Dickens 
``Bleak House.'' As my colleagues will recall, this was a case in which 
most of the estate was swallowed up by lawyers' fees and court costs.
  One has to ask how and why we got to this point. In September 2002, 
when Senator Leahy chaired the Judiciary Committee, he held a hearing 
on the asbestos litigation crisis. I commend Senator Leahy for his 
efforts. The hearing was balanced. It was instructive, providing 
valuable evidence of the dire circumstances for asbestos victims, 
employees, companies, and insurance carriers. The judicial system and 
the American economy at this national embarrassment was left intact. 
That was a year and a half ago.
  When I became chairman of the committee 4 months later, I immediately 
made it clear that I wanted to build on that record, draft a bipartisan 
legislative solution and pass it. Almost immediately, concerns were 
raised, warnings were issued: You are moving too fast, some said. The 
issue is not ripe, others

[[Page 7221]]

advised. You better get it right, others still warned.
  Two months later, on March 5, 2003, I chaired another hearing. Some 
of the same witnesses from before appeared again and the testimony made 
it abundantly clear that while the problem had gotten worse, there was 
bipartisan interest in the idea of creating a national trust fund. We 
heard solutions from a variety of perspectives--from academia, from 
business, from the unions, and from trial bar experts. I made clear I 
would incorporate any constructive proposals offered. I wanted a bill 
that would work. I wanted it to be a bipartisan bill.
  As a result of hearing the magnitude of the asbestos problem, we 
worked toward drafting a bill that would create a national privately 
financed no-fault compensation fund for asbestos victims. As word 
spread about our efforts, warning flags were raised. Some in the 
minority on the other side of the aisle urged us to move slowly, not to 
rush; more time was needed; more talk was needed.
  We finished drafting the bill and we shared it with others, both in 
the Senate and among interested shareholders. There was real interest 
and we were given several good ideas and suggestions. Unfortunately, 
for the first time the minority's caution chorus took voice: We're 
being rushed; we're being jammed.
  This is the minority's caution chorus of worrisome lions. This is 
what we have been going through now for 15 solid months: Do not rush 
us; do not do this; do not do that; we must be cautious.
  We were rushing them, we were jamming them; according to them; I was 
acting unfairly. All this drama was over a bill that I had not even 
introduced.
  I had listened for hours and hours, worked with my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle for days, weeks, and months. They asked that I delay 
introduction. They asked that I delay introduction so they could have 
more time to study the issue and my proposal, which I did. We had more 
meetings, more talk. I incorporated several of their ideas into the 
bill and asked if they would cosponsor it.
  Now I am pleased that a few did. I am forever grateful to those on 
the Democratic side who did. There were two who did--two, after all 
this work. Fifteen months later, we are down to one. More said that it 
was not the right time. They were upset with the way I had shared my 
draft legislation.
  On May 22, 2003, Senators Nelson, Miller, DeWine, Voinovich, Allen, 
Chambliss, Hagel, and I introduced S. 1125, the FAIR Act. The 
minority's caution chorus sang again. These miserable, cowardly lions 
sang again. They were being rushed. They were being jammed.
  In truth, I introduced the bill 78 days after my hearing, 20 weeks 
after the beginning of the session, 6 months after the hearing of 2002. 
This was clearly no sprint.
  On June 19, I held the first markup. Again, the minority caution 
chorus took over again and took voice. The issue was still too complex. 
The bill was too complicated. We were not doing it right. They were 
being rushed. They were being jammed. They asked for more time, and 
they were given it.
  Unlike ever before, the committee's markup of the legislation was 
spread over 3 weeks, 3 solid weeks. We spent 4 separate days--not many 
bills take 4 days to mark up--considering changes, often working late 
into the night. We invited experts to sit with us as we worked through 
complicated medical issues. This was no sprint, no rush to judgment. 
There was no mad dash.
  Interestingly, when there was engagement from the other side, 
agreements were reached. In fact, the committee was able to resolve 
what at the time was supposed to be the biggest impediment to reaching 
a consensus, an issue so fraught with partisan disagreement that it 
could never be resolved.
  In the end, we accommodated scores of concerns raised by the minority 
and found a common ground on medical criteria that everybody, Democrats 
and Republicans, agreed to. It was a major victory. This bipartisan 
accord was achieved and the committee adopted it unanimously. This was 
one of the most ideologically divided committees in the Senate, some 
say the toughest committee in the Senate with those who are the most 
ideologically challenged, I should say, and I cannot disagree with 
that.
  The next impossible hurdle was claims values. Again, I was told there 
was no way a group so divisive, so argumentative, so plainly 
disagreeable as the Judiciary Committee could reach an agreement on how 
much to pay victims. Now, despite the dire predictions, a bipartisan 
agreement was reached again. The committee adopted the Graham-Feinstein 
amendment on claims values by the whopping bipartisan vote of 14 to 3. 
Now I just want to mention to my colleagues on the other side that 
every one of the Democrats voted for that. Three of our Republicans 
thought it was too much money and they voted against it, and they may 
not have been wrong. The only problem is that we are way beyond that 
money today.
  I might add that all of these negative votes were cast by Republicans 
who thought some values were too high. As my colleagues know, we are 
more moderate to conservative over here, and I cannot blame them for 
raising those issues.
  On July 10, 2003, despite the constant wailing from the minority's 
caution chorus again, we reported the bill out of committee by a vote 
of 10 yeas and 8 nays and 1 abstention. We all knew more work had to be 
done before the legislation could be brought to the floor. We also knew 
there would be no bill unless there was a willingness on both sides to 
pass a solution to move towards the middle.
  As summer turned to fall, there were sporadic attempts at additional 
negotiations involving committee staff, as well as among the 
leadership. Minor matters were resolved, but there was no evidence on 
the part of the minority's leadership of any real interest to engage in 
the kind of meaningful effort needed to finalize a bill. Individual 
members of the minority were very public about their interest in 
legislating, but those purportedly tasked with the negotiations did not 
possess the same zeal.
  We have heard, for my whole 28 years, how much more concerned the 
other side is about people and their problems. Well, it does not take 
much to figure out their concern here is more about the trial lawyers 
and the personal injury lawyers who are involved, because they are sure 
not working hard, in my eyes, or I think anybody else who looks at it 
objectively, to find a way of helping those who are truly injured and 
hurt.
  Now, while these efforts were making little progress, work was 
underway on another front beginning in August. Senator Specter began an 
intriguing, arduous mediation among the major stakeholders. That means 
the victims, the alleged victims, the trial attorneys, the personal 
injury lawyers, the insurance companies, the companies that have been 
sued, and companies that are about to be sued. He took on this job. I 
give him a lot of credit for it. He convinced Judge Edward Becker, 
former Chief Judge of the Third Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, to 
play a lead role as a negotiator, as a mediator, for which Judge Becker 
is eminently qualified. He and the judge forced the parties to spend 
dozens and dozens of hours together. We were there, so we do know.
  We spent hours and hours, days, weeks, and months, arguing the 
positions and searching for a common ground. Senator Specter and Judge 
Becker should be commended for their Herculean efforts to keep the 
parties talking and, despite the objections of the representatives and 
the personal injury lawyers, there was progress--slow, incremental, but 
progress. The unions played a significant role. They were there 
virtually all the time.
  However, we have never been able to satisfy them, even though their 
workers are the ones who are going to be hurt the most if this bill 
doesn't pass. They are the ones who are not going to get compensated 
because the moneys are being sopped up by personal injury

[[Page 7222]]

lawyers and people who are not sick because these personal injury 
lawyers are going to jurisdictions that basically are out of whack, 
that really will not look at these things in a reasonable way and who 
basically find for whoever brings the case and find in huge amounts for 
people who are not even sick in many cases.
  I compliment Senator Specter and Judge Becker. There has been some 
slow progress during that period of time.
  During the fall, Senator Frist and I spent considerable time working 
with those who would be paying for the fund to ensure its solvency. It 
was imperative that the bill establish a steady and sufficient flow of 
moneys without allowing the fund itself to perpetuate the same kind of 
economic disasters caused by the tort system as a whole and by the tort 
system with regard to this type of case.
  By the end of October, these issues had been completed and there was 
a renewed attempt to begin negotiations with those on the other side of 
the aisle, but every time an overture was made, the caution chorus was 
being rolled out: We are being rushed. We are being jammed. Every time 
it was rolled out by the other side of the aisle.
  There was always some reservation; Things were moving too fast; There 
were other more important issues; They hadn't been asked the right way; 
They were being rushed; They were being jammed. The reasons changed but 
the result was always the same--no real negotiations. In fact, to this 
day we do not have a substitute or an offer by those who are 
complaining on the other side--to this day. We don't even have a 
monetary amount other than they have thrown out $170 billion, which 
everybody knows cannot be the number.
  During my tenure in this body, I worked with my colleagues in the 
minority on a number of issues, on landmark drug legislation, the 
Hatch-Waxman Act, which gave life to the generic drug industry and 
saved consumers and our Government tens of billions of dollars since 
1984. I worked with minority Members on children's health insurance, on 
childcare, on tax reform, job training. I have worked with them on 
issues involving crime, on legal reform, and a whole raft of other 
issues.
  The Members of the minority are excellent legislators and skilled 
negotiators. They have insightful and creative staffs. I have worked 
with them when they wanted to pass a bill, and I know what it is like 
when they want to pass a bill. I have worked with them when they do 
not, and I know what it is like when they do not. I am telling you this 
is a time when they just don't seem to want to, because there has been 
plenty of opportunity to resolve this matter.
  It is not hard to tell the difference. When there is a genuine 
interest in legislating, one of two things happens. A member of the 
minority leadership comes on at the outset and his or her presence and 
commitment helps to generate sufficient pressure on both sides to move 
legislation.
  The second way, the minority offers their own version of the bill 
enabling both sides to sit down and work through the differences and 
craft a compromise.
  Here there was no move by the minority's leadership and there was 
never, despite repeated and frequent requests, any interest by the 
minority in introducing their own solution. Instead, they chose to 
spend their time finding fault with our legislation and complaining 
about our process.
  Another concentrated effort to move the bill was made in November, 
last year, and not surprisingly the caution chorus came out and began 
singing its song again: We are being rushed; we are being jammed, even 
though there were a number of Democrats who stood up and said they had 
to get this done before the end of this year.
  Where are the real Democrats? That is what I would like to know. The 
pressure continued, however. Interested stakeholders would not take no 
for an answer. Hints were made about bringing the bill to the floor, 
even if it resulted in a filibuster. Suddenly the message changed. Now 
we were told the minority's leadership wanted to find a resolution, 
that there was bipartisan interest in passing a solution. It was 
implied if we would just postpone consideration to early next year, 
there would be ample time to finish work on this bill.
  The majority leader agreed and on November 22, 2003, he announced he 
would not bring up the asbestos bill prior to the end of the session. 
Instead, he would give the parties additional time to complete their 
negotiations. But he made clear his intention of bringing the bill to 
the floor this year.
  His announcement was well received by the other side. I remember. As 
this year began, it was clear from the outset that, despite the 
promises of November, little had changed; there were no real 
breakthroughs. So, in February, the majority leader announced his 
intention to bring the bill to the floor the third week of April. But 
yet again the caution chorus rolled out its usual objections: The issue 
was too complex; the legislation was too complicated; they were being 
rushed; they were being jammed. Indeed, we even offered to engage in 
protracted negotiating sessions, but again the Democrats demurred.
  In February, my staff sent an e-mail to Democratic staffers proposing 
a multiday negotiation to seek a resolution of the issue. It contains 
an offer to meet during all-day sessions, ``during recess weekends, or 
weekends during session.''
  The response from the minority was unambiguous: Don't rush us. Don't 
rush us.
  Senator Specter, to his credit, kept pushing forward and, as a result 
of his efforts, the stakeholders reached agreement on what was supposed 
to be another impossible hurdle, the administrative structure, which I 
mentioned earlier.
  The proposal was not to our liking. It would require a fundamental 
change in our position, allowing the fund to be run out of the 
Department of Labor, but because organized labor signaled its strong 
support for this change and because we wanted to reach consensus on 
other critical issues remaining on the bill, we agreed and we agreed 
despite the objections from many on our side of the aisle and in spite 
of the objections from the White House.
  The minority, instead of accepting this concession, instead of 
endorsing this considerable victory for organized labor, made it clear 
that this significant agreement meant nothing more than a chance to 
bank an advantage. They offered no alternative. They revealed no new 
proposal or compromise. In fact, it is reminiscent of the style of 
negotiation that says: What is mine is mine; what is yours is 
negotiable.
  Nonetheless, additional proposals were made but there was no 
counteroffer, none of the typical give and take that is the hallmark of 
serious negotiations in this most important legislative body in the 
world. It was like trying to play tennis with a curtain. There is never 
any meaningful discussion of what the payers, the ones who have to pay 
these bills, most desire and, frankly, they deserve: a fair and 
predictable payment schedule.
  Whatever we do is going to be tough on the payers here. This bill is 
plenty tough on the payers. Don't think they are not squealing; they 
are.
  It was now obvious even to the most optimistic Member of this Chamber 
that it would be impossible to bring a consensus bill to the floor, one 
supported by the leadership of both parties. We are hearing Senator 
Leahy has at last put together an alternative proposal on this national 
trust fund. Has it been introduced? Have we even seen it? Of course 
not. The only choice left was to bring a bill to the floor and hope 
enough Members of the minority thought the issue was of sufficient 
importance, as they have repeatedly said, to allow the Senate to 
consider this bill.
  To help facilitate discussion, I introduced, with Senator Frist and 
Senator Miller from the other side of the aisle, S. 2290, a second 
version of the bill which incorporated many significant changes that 
have been made since the legislation was first introduced and first 
reported from the committee.
  That is the legislation before us today. It contains the bipartisan 
agreement on medical criteria. It contains

[[Page 7223]]

the agreement reached by the stakeholders on the revised administrative 
structure and numerous other changes adopted during the Specter 
negotiations that have all been to try to get the Democrats to move on 
this bill. It contains the handful of changes agreed to by both sides 
since the bill was reported out of committee. It also contains higher 
claims values passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of committee 
and incorporates yet another monumental change and another fundamental 
concession to address the complaints by the minority.
  We have included provisions in the bill to make clear that the risk 
of insolvency will not be borne by the asbestos victims; it will fall 
on the defendant companies and their carriers. If there are 
insufficient moneys, the fund will terminate and parties will return to 
the tort system--to Federal courts. There is no point in sending it 
back to the State jurisdictions that created the asbestos crisis in the 
first place.
  Here we are today. The time has come to act. The day of decision has 
arrived. Unfortunately, to no one's surprise, the caution choir is on 
its feet again, or somewhat on its feet, I guess I should say: They 
need more time; the issues are too complex; the bill is too long; they 
weren't consulted the right way; they were being rushed; they are being 
jammed.
  I was told by many at the beginning of last year that when I embarked 
on this legislation the Democrats would simply run out the clock. They 
will never let us vote on a bill that could deprive them of their huge 
cash cow.
  First, Democrats would push into the election year, they said. Then 
they would filibuster a motion to proceed. That is exactly what has 
happened so far in their zeal to make sure that their hard money donors 
get their way at least this year--an election year. It is not too late 
to change that.
  Let me just say that the caution chorus is sounding like a broken 
record that needs to be shut off. It has been 333 days since S. 1125 
was introduced.
  A hundred years ago, it took Christopher Columbus only 222 days to 
discover the new world and return to Spain--one of the most remarkable 
discoveries in the history of the world. It took Neil Armstrong only 8 
days to travel to the Moon and back. Our forefathers were able to write 
the U.S. Constitution in only 4 months. But somehow there hasn't been 
enough time for the minority to help write this bill although they have 
had a lot of say and have had a lot of concession. We have tried to do 
everything to bring them to the table and get things done. Here we find 
ourselves in a filibuster on the motion to proceed.
  This caution chorus of cowardly lions reminds me of what is going on. 
Of course, there was one big difference. In those historical examples, 
the players actually wanted to finish. They actually wanted to discover 
an America. They actually wanted to go to the Moon.
  Over these 333 days, we have had numerous congressional recesses and 
holidays. Just look at this. Over 333 days, and we are now under a 
filibuster. That comes from the Spanish word ``filibustero,'' meaning 
pirating or hijacking. It is just one more obstruction. We have had 
nothing but obstruction since George Bush has become President of the 
United States--over and over. There have been very few bills passed, 
and the ones that have passed have had to overcome the obstructionism. 
My goodness. There are some Democrats who have been willing to overcome 
obstruction, but on this one, it has not been brought to conclusion.
  We have had one entire summer, the fall, winter, and we are quickly 
working our way through spring. How much more time is needed to sit 
down and get this matter resolved? The time has come for the minority 
to stand up and be counted.
  If they are genuinely troubled by our proposal and all the agreements 
we have reached with them, they have an obligation--indeed a 
responsibility--to offer their own solution. The challenge is on them. 
Introduce a bill. Make sure it strikes the same balance demanded of us. 
Make sure it is fair in the way we have tried to make it fair. Make 
sure it provides adequate moneys for asbestos victims. Make sure it 
provides compensation quickly, efficiently, and fairly. Make sure it 
does not reward the unimpaired, those who aren't sick. Make sure it is 
not hijacked and turned into a smokers' compensation fund. Make sure it 
does not bankrupt more companies and throw hundreds of thousands of 
Americans out of work and out of their health plans, their pensions, or 
wipe out their lives financially.
  That is what is going to happen. For the life of me, I can't 
understand why many in the trade union movement aren't jumping on this 
bill in every way they possibly can because their employees are the 
ones who are getting hurt. They will never get the money we have in 
this bill if we don't pass a bill.
  Make sure it doesn't stick the Federal Government with a bill at end 
of the day.
  Now you on the other side of the aisle have claimed that the asbestos 
crisis must be fixed. You have all agreed there is a crisis in our 
country. You have conceded that the tort system is broken, that we have 
a historic opportunity to act. The end is within reach, and we must 
grasp it.
  But here we are. I think the time has come to act, to make good on 
the promises which have been made on the other side of the aisle, to 
demonstrate the leadership and responsibility our Nation demands when 
we are asked to do our job to fix a national crisis. It is time to move 
past our alleged mistakes and complaints about perceived procedural 
insensitivities.
  It is time for the caution choir, which we have been looking at here 
today, to quit singing ``We are being rushed; We are being jammed.'' It 
is time for the real interests to take a stand and to do what is right.
  It is getting late in the day to appoint another committee and 
schedule more meetings and talk. It really bothers me that they are 
filibustering the motion to proceed, which has only been used on rare 
occasions before the last few years, before the obstructions that have 
been occurring on a regular basis. People in the past were willing to 
debate these bills and were willing to try to amend them if they didn't 
like them, willing to be legislators and not obstructionists, willing 
to do what is right for the American people.
  We have now been on this bill 15 solid months and we still have not 
seen, other than demands during negotiations, what our friends on the 
other side must have to resolve this problem, which in many respects is 
the most dangerous problem hanging over America today, especially for 
employees, especially for union members, especially for those who want 
health care and who want their pensions to be saved, especially for 
8,400 companies on the one hand, and maybe more if these voracious 
personal injury lawyers continue to conjoin people who really have had 
nothing to do with asbestos but have been conjoined in these actions 
where they are stuck with humongous defense costs and attorneys' fees 
themselves, so the moneys that would go to the sick and the needy, 
those who really need it, go down the drain of legal fees, clogging our 
courts so that other legitimate cases can't be brought.
  Again, I will return to that message. Why is it that we are going 
through this type of chorus charade? Why is it that we haven't had more 
cooperation? Why is it that we can't get them to come up with what is 
needed to resolve this morass? Why is it during this election year?
  All I can do is ask the question. I think anybody observing knows 
what the answers are. At least that is what has been alleged to me. 
That is what has been suggested. I hope it is not true.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to the 
distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He has served in 
this Senate for many years. He is himself a superb lawyer, a 
constitutional scholar, and has been through many of these debates.
  I remember on one night after 11 o'clock at night when the chairman

[[Page 7224]]

met with everybody who had a problem. He urged them to come forward. He 
compromised and compromised.
  Frankly, sometimes I think maybe the bill has gone too far--really 
seriously. We need to talk about that, offer amendments to fix it. We 
ought bring the bill to the Senate floor and start to discuss that.
  But Senator Hatch has bent over backwards to make sure this 
legislation which is critically needed for America passes. It is 
critically needed for people who are sick from asbestos and those who 
fear they might get sick from it. I thank the chairman for his 
leadership. I have not known any effort that I have seen in which a 
chairman has gone further to try to win the support of other members in 
the committee and the Senators who might be dubious, to get their 
support. And the Senator continues to get it.
  I thought we had the bill completed. I thought we had everybody 
signed up. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague for his kind remarks. I appreciate 
the hard work the Senator and others have put in on this side. There 
are some on the other side who have worked hard. Particularly, I 
express my gratitude to Senator Miller, Senator Nelson, and Senator 
Feinstein. I understand Senators Nelson and Feinstein are probably 
going to vote against cloture. I don't know. I cannot speak for them. I 
hope not. They are two who have tried to work with us on this bill.
  If that is laid down, I don't know where we will go. I am afraid an 
awful lot of people will be left high and dry while these trial 
lawyers, the personal injury lawyers, walk off with $60 billion in fees 
and costs that could go to people who are sick. I don't begrudge 
attorneys the fees they earn. We have more than made a case that the 
system is broken. There are a certain limited number of personal injury 
lawyers who are taking advantage of the system and doing it in ways 
that are reprehensible.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the chairman. I agree with his comments. I 
thank him for doing all that humanly could be done to win the support 
necessary for this bill.
  I had a brief period of time in which I filed plaintiffs' lawsuits 
for individuals who had asbestos injuries. These individuals were sick; 
asbestos is a debilitating disease. They had been heavily exposed to 
asbestos. One individual worked in a submarine, where the air inside 
was thick with asbestos fibers. He was severely debilitated as a result 
of that. I believe people who are injured ought to be compensated.
  It was discovered that manufacturers of asbestos knew at some point 
before they told people who were working on it that it was dangerous. 
And they should have told them it was dangerous and their health was at 
risk and they did not do so. That is the fundamental cause of the 
litigation.
  I filed my asbestos litigation in the 1970s. I eventually turned it 
over to a group of lawyers who were experts in this matter. They took 
the case. I was not able to do it. They did a lot of work. They had to 
break down barriers, win the liability questions, and prove knowledge 
on the part of the companies. They overcame legal objections such as 
whose asbestos did you breathe.
  Most plaintiffs' lawyers today involved in litigation are not proud 
of what has happened with asbestos. The companies have been tagged. The 
companies are stuck. They admit they did wrong. They are willing to 
compensate, as they are able to compensate. There is only so much 
money. We are talking about billions of dollars, maybe $54 billion 
already paid out.
  I was there as a lawyer and earned part of a fee out of the 
litigation. I didn't know how it would come out or what the statute of 
limitation was. Maybe my claim has expired. But things have changed. 
The companies are willing to pay. Some victims are sick and need 
compensation. They need it now. They do not need to have a big chunk of 
what they are entitled to paid to lawyers or to experts or testing 
companies. They need to be paid. It is a blight on the legal system.
  I see the distinguished assistant Democratic leader. He is a superior 
lawyer, and would do an admirable job in court, no doubt. But, these 
cases are not going to trial. It is a process. These cases are filed 
and settled, and sometimes victims are paid. Certain defendants do not 
have money, so they cannot pay. Sixty asbestos companies are in 
bankruptcy today because they cannot pay or cannot fully pay all the 
claims. Thousands of new claims are being filed on a regular basis.
  The new trend is that people not sick are filing. They may have been 
exposed to asbestos, and there may be some showing of asbestos in the 
pleura or their lungs, but it has not had a debilitating effect or not 
caused cancer or anything like that, and they are filing by the tens of 
thousands, saying they might get sick. But they are not sick yet.
  What do you do? It is perfectly appropriate that this Congress act. 
We do it with workmens' compensation. A person is injured on the job, 
they get compensation under certain circumstances. It is a lot easier 
to get it, but it is limited and you do not have to pay so much 
expenses and it works pretty well. That is all by regulation. We do not 
leave everything totally to juries, judges, and lawyers to settle.
  I believe in the principle of the Congress stepping in, when 
necessary. The fundamental reason I believe, is that, in my view, in 
the history of the most magnificent legal system we have, the Anglo-
American heritage of law, we have ever had a system that has been as 
abused. Sixty percent of the money paid out by the defendant companies, 
over half of it, 60 percent according to testimony we had a number of 
years ago in the Judiciary Committee, does not get to the people who 
are sick. It does not get to any plaintiff. It is eaten up by court 
costs, lawyer fees, expert witnesses, and testing companies. That is 
not right.
  It is not right when the defendants themselves admit they are wrong 
and are willing to pay. In fact, they do pay and they agreed to pay and 
they have trusts that are supposed to pay, but the trusts are getting 
drained of money. Companies are going into bankruptcy and fewer and 
fewer victims are getting paid.
  If we care about the rule of law, if we care about decency, 
fundamental fairness, if we respect law, if we love the law, we should 
not allow a situation to continue where the defendant companies are 
willing to pay, and the plaintiffs, some of them desperately need 
payment, but the plaintiff only ends up getting 40 percent of what is 
paid out. The defendant companies have to hire lawyers, too, whole law 
firms. They file papers and disclosures and depositions and expert 
witnesses. This is just chewing up money, money, money, money.
  Now, if somebody has mesothelioma, a cancer that causes death, they 
ought to be paid. They do not need 60 percent of what they are entitled 
to, to go to some lawyer, some defense lawyer or some expert witness or 
court cost. And they ought not to die before they get it.
  Under this bill, if you file a claim and you have mesothelioma--which 
is tied directly to asbestos--it is caused very few times other than by 
asbestos, and you can demonstrate exposure to asbestos and 
mesothelioma, you get $1 million. That is what the latest figure is. 
And you do not need a lawyer at all. You get it now. Under the current 
system, they file lawsuits, months go by before anything results. The 
plaintiff wants $25 million. The defendant wants to pay $500,000.
  They go along and along, and all the time the families are suffering, 
the plaintiffs are suffering, and maybe even dying. That is not good. 
Then, when it is paid, finally, some of the companies do not have the 
money. Some insurance companies say they are not liable for this part 
of the claim, and it goes on and on and on.
  I deeply believe we need to end this spasm. This is not good. It is 
not something any lawyer can be proud of. In fact, I think everybody is 
embarrassed by it.
  Let me read from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court, a 
former member of the ACLU--one of the more liberal Justices. This is 
what she wrote in 1997:

       The argument is sensibly made that a nationwide 
     administrative claims processing

[[Page 7225]]

     regime would provide the most secure, fair and efficient 
     means of compensating victims of asbestos exposure. Congress, 
     however, has not adopted such a solution.

  In 1997 she wrote that; and we have been battling this ever since. 
Every effort has been made.
  Now we have proposed a $100 billion fund--not millions--$100 billion, 
set aside for payment of these claims. That is apparently not 
satisfying everyone. In Ortiz v. Fiberboard Company, in 1999, Justice 
Souter--another one of the liberal members of the Supreme Court--said:

       The elephantine mass of asbestos cases defies customary 
     judicial administration and calls for national legislation. 
     To date, Congress has not responded.

  We have people here who are filibustering this bill from even coming 
up, saying they are being rushed. This bill and this idea and this 
concept of creating a nationwide claims processing regime, as Justice 
Ginsburg called it, is overdue by decades. It is wrong what we are 
doing. It is being blocked, I can only conclude, by a partisan special 
interest effort. The only people who have an interest in continuing 
this despicable regime are a few lawyers who are getting absolutely 
rich from it--$54 billion, and you have a 40-percent contingency fee.
  Senator Hatch said, when this thing is over, lawyers would make $100 
billion. And don't think it is a lot of them. It is not a lot of them. 
It is not the basic plaintiff bar. These lawyers have 10,000, 20,000, 
30,000 cases they are handling. It is not right. It is wrong. The 
people who are blocking this need to be ashamed of themselves.
  The Supreme Court Justices have called for reform. It is threatening 
our economy. They develop schemes now where companies that had even the 
most tangential connection to asbestos are getting sued. If you can 
just ever tap them. If a company bought a company that dealt in 
asbestos, and that company had ceased dealing with asbestos for 10 
years, they can be bankrupted because they have become liable for the 
company they bought, their actions 10, 15 years before they bought it. 
Do you think that is not possible? It is possible. It is happening 
right now.
  These companies and the insurance companies and the reinsurance 
companies have come together and put up $100 billion--$100 billion. All 
we need to do is set up an administrative claims processing system 
where persons who are sick, who have any disability, really any health 
defect can file a claim. Those who are not ready, those who do not have 
a claim, who fear they might be sick at some time in the future, can 
file their notice and will be given a constant monitoring of their 
health. If they do get sick, they can be compensated fully.
  So we would be getting money to the people who are sick. We would be 
reducing the need for these huge, outrageous legal fees from the 
plaintiffs' lawyers. We would be eliminating all the lawyers' fees paid 
by the asbestos companies.
  There are companies that bought asbestos companies, and people who 
sold brake shoes, and anybody who had anything to do with asbestos, who 
are being sued. Now there are 8,400 companies being sued. Most of them 
never produced asbestos, never knew anything about asbestos, never 
dealt with asbestos. So these people are willing to put up $100 
billion.
  We simply ought to be able to establish a system by which sick people 
can be paid, and paid promptly, without these costs. If we do not, who 
is going to lose most? The plaintiffs are going to lose. These 
companies are going into bankruptcy. It is hurting this economy. It 
will continue to hurt America's economy.
  I thank the Presiding Officer. I appreciate the opportunity to share 
these remarks. I think it is important. I hope the Senate will move 
forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding the majority leader 
is on his way.
  I will withhold and ask the distinguished majority leader to do the 
close and then allow me to finish my speech.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I appreciate the consideration. I will move 
through, fairly quickly, some business that finishes up on today and 
explains what we will be doing tomorrow.

                          ____________________